2006-10-20

Witness Protection Program Act--Bill C-286The Speaker: Before we launch into orders of the day, I have a short ruling to make.
As hon. members know, the Chair has undertaken to ensure that pertinent procedural questions are resolved before the second reading debate on a private member's bill is concluded.
Therefore, before the debate begins on Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, I must advise the House of a procedural difficulty which the bill poses for the Chair.
Hon. members may recall that I first raised this issue in the statement I made in the House on May 31st last concerning private members' business.
Careful examination of Bill C-286 indicates that clause 4 replaces sections 3 and 4 of the existing Witness Protection Program Act. It extends the application of the program to persons whose life is in danger because of acts committed against them by their spouse, a protection that does not currently exist under the witness protection program. In doing so, the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function.
As a new function, such an activity is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. As the House knows, funds are approved by Parliament only for purposes covered by the accompanying royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.
Thus, the Chair has concluded that those provisions in clause 4 of the bill which relate to the expansion of the witness protection program require a royal recommendation.
I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation has been received.
Today, however, the debate is on the motion for second and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing ActHon. Lawrence Cannon:  moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-25. This legislation contains needed measures to update Canada's fight against money laundering and terrorist financing activities.
 This new government is determined to be on the front lines of the important global fight against money laundering and organized crime, and against terrorist financing activities.
Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime must be kept up to date and must adapt to evolving money laundering and terrorist financing schemes. Criminals are constantly changing their tactics and finding new ways to evade the law. 
The proposed amendments in the bill before the House today are critical in helping to stay one step ahead of these criminals.
Bill C-25 illustrates that Canada's new government is serious about ensuring that Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regimes both meet revised international standards in this area and also address the areas of risk here at home.
Before I address the specifics of this bill, I would like to take a few moments to provide some background to this proposed legislation to emphasize the importance of Bill C-25.
First, we ought to remind ourselves what exactly are money laundering and terrorist financing. 
Members of the House are well aware that the activities of organized crime, such as drug trafficking and prostitution, generate significant amounts of money, usually in cash. The criminal or group must find a way to spend and invest the funds without attracting attention to the underlying illicit activity, lest it be shut down and they lose their source of revenue.
Money laundering of course is very difficult to quantify. However, the International Monetary Fund makes an educated estimate that the aggregate size of money laundering worldwide is between 2% and 5% of global GDP. That is a very significant amount.
How does money laundering work? How does it take place? Money laundering occurs in three stages. The first is the placement stage. In this stage the launderer introduces the illegal profits into the financial system. This is done in a number of ways. One is breaking up large amounts of cash into less conspicuous smaller sums that are then deposited directly into a bank account. Another is using cash to purchase a series of monetary instruments, cheques, money orders, et cetera, from financial institutions that are then collected and deposited into accounts at other locations.
The second stage is called layering. In this stage the launderer engages in a series of conversions or movements of the funds to distance them from the first place they were deposited. For example, this could be through the purchase or sale of investment instruments such as shares or a series of wire transfers to various bank accounts globally. 
Having successfully moved the criminal profits through the first two stages of the money laundering process, the launderer then enters the third stage which is integration. It is at the integration stage that the funds re-enter the legitimate economy. The funds can now be invested or used to purchase luxury assets, real estate, securities or other investments.
Money launderers tend to seek out jurisdictions with weak or ineffective anti-money laundering programs. Canada does not want to be on that list. However, because the objective of money laundering is to get the illegal funds back to the individual who first collected them through criminal activity, launderers usually prefer to move funds through areas of highly developed, stable and sophisticated financial systems, and where the large volume of transactions may diminish the risk of suspicious transactions being detected. That is a country like Canada with a sophisticated and stable financial system.
The other element, terrorist financing, how does that fit into this picture? Terrorist organizations require financial support in order to carry out their evil and destructive activities. A successful terrorist group, like a criminal organization, must be able to build and maintain a steady flow of funds. It must develop sources of money, a means to covertly move that money around, and a way to ensure that the money can be used to obtain the materials needed to commit terrorist acts.
Terrorist financing comes from two primary sources. First, there is state sponsored terrorism, sadly. Financial support is provided for these terrorist activities by states or organizations large enough to collect and then make funds available to the terrorist organization. A variation of this is where a wealthy individual provides funding. For example, Osama bin Laden is thought to have contributed significant amounts of his personal fortune to the establishment and support of the al-Qaeda network.
The second source of terrorist financing is money derived directly from various revenue generating activities. As with organized criminals, a terrorist group's income often comes from crime or other unlawful activities. For example, a terrorist group may engage in large scale smuggling, various types of fraud, robbery and narcotics trafficking. 
However, unlike organized crime, terrorism can be financed using legitimate funds such as those collected in the name of charitable causes. These loopholes, often exploited by terrorist groups, need special attention in order for Canada to move effectively to deny terrorists the funds they use for their destructive deeds.
It is this second source of terrorist funds that the measures in the bill are designed to detect. 
It is important to remember that this activity has an effect on all Canadians because money laundering, major criminal fraud, and financial crimes have the potential to undermine the Canadian economy by impacting the reputation and integrity of individual financial institutions, not to mention the financial sector as a whole.
Members of the House will appreciate that the integrity of Canada's banking and financial services depends on citizens and investors being able to trust that institutions are well regulated and protected from criminal elements. 
By extension, a healthy financial system is absolutely critical to Canada's ability to attract investment, and therefore increase and sustain overall economic growth and productivity.
If funds from criminal activity can be easily processed through a particular institution because proper anti-money laundering controls are not in place, institutions could be drawn into unwitting complicity with criminals. As well, evidence of such abuse will have a damaging effect on the perception of other financial intermediaries, regulatory authorities and Canadians themselves. 
The potential costs of money laundering are of course serious. If not addressed, organized crime can infiltrate financial institutions, acquire control of large sectors of the economy through investment, create competitive disadvantages for local businesses, and continue to fund harmful criminal activity such as drug trafficking, human smuggling and prostitution which preys on women.
What has Canada done to prevent and deter money laundering and terrorist financing? 
Since 2001 Canada has had an anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime that is in the top tier of our international partners. This legislation has helped ensure that Canada is not a haven for money laundering and terrorist financing activities. 
Indeed, Canada has made significant progress in detecting suspected cases of money laundering and terrorist financing. We continue to work closely with our domestic and international partners to improve the regime.
In 2005-06, reporting entities filed upwards of 30,000 suspicious transaction reports with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC. In turn, FINTRAC made 168 case disclosures to law enforcement agencies. In addition, 10 new domestic information-sharing agreements were signed with financial sector regulators. 
FINTRAC now has 30 information-sharing agreements with foreign counterparts internationally. 
Canada's new government has committed to a strong and comprehensive anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism regime that is consistent with international standards. That is what this bill, Bill C-25, is all about. It amends the existing legislation in order to update and enhance the legislation to better combat money laundering and terrorist financing activities.
To begin with, the measures proposed in the bill will update Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime to be consistent with international standards set out by the Financial Action Task Force, which is the international standard-setting body on this issue. These standards were revised in 2003 and all task force members have had to update their regimes. Canada is now doing so with this bill.
The proposed amendments will require financial intermediaries to undertake a number of actions such as enhanced client identification and record-keeping measures. They will also be required to undertake enhanced measures with respect to certain clients and activities, for example with respect to foreign politically exposed persons and their banking relationships. 
The reporting of suspicious attempted transactions will also be required.
Bill C-25 also establishes a new registration regime for money services businesses that remit funds in and out of Canada and for foreign exchange dealers, within FINTRAC. This new regime will provide FINTRAC with a tool to increase compliance with the requirements under this act for money services businesses and foreign exchange dealers. Coupled with the registration requirement, a new offence will be created for operating an unregistered money services business.
The exclusion of legal counsel from the regime has been identified as a gap by both the Auditor General and law enforcement. Over the last number of years, the government has been negotiating with the legal profession on how best to include it in the regime. Through regulations made under Bill C-25 and consistent with the Financial Action Task Force requirements, legal counsel will now be required to undertake client identification and record-keeping measures when acting as financial intermediaries. 
These measures complement the prohibition on the receipt of cash over $7,500 by legal counsel that is currently in place and enforced through provincial law society rules of professional conduct. These measures also respect the Supreme Court of Canada's Lavallee decision.
Bill C-25 also establishes monetary penalties in addition to existing criminal sanctions. This will allow FINTRAC to impose graduated penalties that adequately reflect the nature of the violation. The monetary penalties, for example, will be particularly useful for offences that are less advertent or egregious.
An important part of Bill C-25 relates to information sharing. Specifically, the bill proposes to allow the exchange of information between FINTRAC here in Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, and with Canadian law enforcement agencies, to better prevent and detect the use of registered charities for financing of terrorism.
Moreover, to increase the usefulness of FINTRAC's disclosures, the range of information disclosed will be expanded, as well as the list of disclosure recipients. This list will now include the Communications Security Establishment and the Canada Border Services Agency. Also, the agency will be allowed to share cross-border currency reporting information internally for the administration of immigration legislation. 
Amendments are also proposed in Bill C-25 to allow information sharing of compliance-related information between FINTRAC and its foreign counterparts. As well, information sharing provisions are proposed between the Canada Border Services Agency and its foreign counterparts on the enforcement of the cross-border currency enforcing regime.
It is important to emphasize that Canada's government recognizes how essential it is to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. That is why Bill C-25 includes a number of safeguards to protect those rights. The bill strikes the right balance in meeting the needs of law enforcement while respecting the privacy rights of Canadians.
I want to outline for the House these safeguards. First, there is an arm's length relationship between FINTRAC and law enforcement and other agencies entitled to receive information. Second, there is disclosure of only key information regarding financial institutions and publicly available information to police and other designated entities. Third, there are criminal penalties for any unauthorized use of disclosure of personal information under FINTRAC's control. Fourth, there is a requirement for a court order by law enforcement agencies to obtain any other than very minimal information from FINTRAC.
With the proposals contained in the bill, the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime will continue to strike an appropriate balance, on the one hand providing law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the tools they need to effectively fight money laundering and terrorist financing, while on the other hand taking appropriate and strong steps to respect and protect the privacy of Canadians.
The bill is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Privacy Act.
In closing, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the excellent work done by the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Its insightful report calls for tougher measures to deal with money laundering and terrorist financing. This bill responds to the Senate committee recommendations.
Canada needs a robust and up to date anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime to ensure security for Canadians on a number of fronts.
 Canada must also continue to meet its global obligations. For the year starting July 1, 2006, Canada will chair the international Financial Action Task Force, the international standard-setting body on this important issue. Taking on this responsibility, along with the measures proposed in Bill C-25, demonstrates the solid leadership of Canada's new government that we are showing in the global effort against money laundering and terrorist financing.
I therefore urge all hon. members to accord swift passage to this bill.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. This bill flows from quite a number of the previous government's initiatives. I want to congratulate her and her government on trying to put together some form of bill to address this egregious problem.
This bill has a number of commendable features, but I want to ask my colleague a couple of questions with respect to some of the holes in the bill.
 Recently I returned from Moscow, where I met with some Russian officials and talked about this very matter. The Russian officials told us that they are most concerned about the conversion of money into things like diamonds, platinum and things of that nature, other businesses, so to speak. That is how terrorism was being financed in Russia. Of course, regardless of what we think of the Chechen situation in Russia, the Russians regard it as a terrorist situation. Bill C-25 will not deal with this problem. It leaves a very obvious gap, one through which even a not so well-informed criminal organization could take advantage.
I wonder what comfort the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance can give those who are watching that this form of conversion from a financial instrument to other valuable commodities might be addressed. 
The second issue I have is with respect to the compromise with the legal profession. As I read this bill, it seems that lawyers will essentially be obligated to disclose financial records only if they know the identity of the client. This seems to me to be something of a low threshold of obligation on the part of the legal profession, which transacts massive sums of money on a daily basis. 
I would be interested in the member's comments on both of these issues.
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's remarks. I think we can be proud that, no matter what stripe of government we have had in this country, this issue has been taken very seriously and strong measures have been put into place as a priority. I know that the hon. member has much to offer from his recent travels and I look forward to talking to him more about them.
The hon. member will be happy to know that this bill in fact does expand the number of reporting entities, including operators who deal in gemstones and precious metals, so some of the issues he raises will in fact now be included in this regime. We are also having discussions with the Home Builders' Association, because increasingly, investment in real estate now is being used by criminal organizations and terrorist organizations and we want to draw them in.
With respect to the lawyers, this bill represents a step forward in including this important body, which often deals with numbers of issues and entities. They will now be able to have the information that might be required at their fingertips should they be asked for it, under the strict guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in the Lavallee decision. The issue the hon. member raises is being dealt with in the bill in what I think is a balanced way, one that has, generally speaking, garnered the support of the broad base of the legal profession.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the parliamentary secretary. 
As members know, the Bloc Québécois will support most of Bill C-25, but the way banks and institutions have processed their clients' personal information in the past causes us to worry.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to assure us that the personal information of Quebeckers and Canadians will not be used for purposes other than fighting terrorism. We have seen some banks allow the disclosure of information on individuals to other companies when those banks have entrusted that personal information to U.S. institutions. What can the parliamentary secretary say to assure us that the bill will protect the personal information of the people of Quebec and Canada?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, we commend Bloc members on their engagement on this important issue. Also, the member raises a very important issue. Privacy of Canadians and ensuring that it is protected is a high priority for the government and for all members of the House.
The bill provides that financial institutions report directly to FINTRAC. They are not to be giving information to any other entity. That information would only be provided by FINTRAC and FINTRAC provides only very minimal information about any individual, information basically that would be available on the Internet.
If further information is required, a judge must examine and decide that, yes, further information is required. If information is shared outside the country with our international partners, that will only occur if there is a memorandum of understanding with the partner and if a strict protocol followed. The minister must look at each of those requests and personally approve them. We are anxious to ensure that privacy rights are protected.
We have met with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on this issue and will hold further meetings to ensure that we understand any concerns on privacy and meet them as strongly as possible.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Construction Secretariat is jointly funded by the construction industry, the province of Ontario and the Government of Canada, HRDC. The parliamentary secretary will know that undocumented workers in the construction industry, particularly in Ontario, is a very big problem. Indeed, it has been computed that the cost to governments, both provincial and federal, is about $1.3 billion a year as a consequence of these undocumented or illegal workers within the construction industry.
For those areas within the economy which have known abuses and links directly to money laundering and under the table or underground economy activity, could the parliamentary secretary assure the House that attention will be appropriately spent in these areas under the bill, or at least under existing legislation?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, this was been a difficult issue for his party when it was in government and it continues to be one which needs to be monitored closely. The bill is not the appropriate place, however, to deal with the issue of undocumented workers.
We are discussing with the Canadian Home Builders Association whether it might play a role in ensuring that there are no loopholes for conversion of criminal proceeds into investment instruments or real estate. That is under the purview of the bill. The issue the member raises is not.
However, we continue to be engaged in this issue and in this whole area, particularly to ensure that Canada's economy is not unduly vulnerable to problems that the bill is addresses.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the principle underlying this bill. This is not surprising, since we essentially created this bill following the events of September 11, 2001.
I would like to emphasize that my colleague, the member for Willowdale, brought the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) into being. After a certain period of time, we have to amend it. Generally, the amendments proposed in this bill make sense.
I think everyone in the House would agree that while money is not everything, money is a lot, and one of the best ways to choke off terrorism and money launderers is to remove them from their source of money. Essentially, that is the purpose of FINTRAC. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen our ability to act in this area and to bring FINTRAC up to the international norms in terms of money laundering and terrorist financing. However, it is also important that we look at the other side of the coin, and that is privacy concerns and individual rights. 
While the pursuit of choking off the sources of funds for money launderers and terrorists is extremely important, at the same time the bill has to safeguard the privacy rights of individuals and prevent a situation in which totally innocent people suffer as a consequence of this bill. I will come back to that point in a few minutes.
Overall, Liberals think the bill is a move in the right direction. We have a number of concerns that we will raise in committee and possibly propose amendments, but we will certainly support the bill for second reading.
The bill proposes to make some necessary changes to the previous government's bill in 2001, Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. I think changes like this will likely be required every few years as money launderers become more sophisticated and police need new powers to combat them. This is essentially the nature of money laundering and why it is so difficult to combat.
Technological changes occur and money launderers make a few steps ahead. It is always important for the government to react to that so we can be ahead of them, rather than they ahead of us. In that general sense, we fully support the intentions and actions of the bill.
There are three concerns I would like to highlight today. Two of them have been raised by my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. 
The first of these is that money laundering does not necessarily involve just money. It might involve precious jewels, diamonds and even real estate, as the parliamentary secretary indicated. Therefore, if we are to be comprehensive and effective in our pursuit of terrorist financing and money laundering, then we have to broaden the scope of the act beyond pure cash.
Much of what I am saying, I should point out, has come from a very good report entitled “Stemming the Flow of Illicit Money”, which was presented by fine colleagues from the other place. As they reported, the RCMP believes:
 --[a]s stricter regulations are imposed on businesses in the financial services industry, criminals are seeking alternative methods of laundering the money accumulated from criminal activity. Various characteristics of the (precious metals, stones and jewellery) industry make it highly vulnerable to criminal activity. 
The RCMP has identified these businesses as likely places for criminals to launder their money. Therefore, there is a good case that the bill require members of this industry to report suspicious transactions in the same way that banks and other financial institutions are required to do. This point was reinforced by my colleague in his conversations with people in Russia.
I know the parliamentary secretary has suggested that in some respects the bill may respond to these concerns, but from my initial knowledge of the bill, it is not at all obvious to me that the bill provides an adequate response to these concerns. This will certainly be one of the areas that the Liberal Party will want to explore when the bill goes to committee.
This as well was mentioned by my colleague from Scarborough. It is the issue of solicitor-client privilege and the need to balance that principle with the need for the government and for Canadian society to get tough and serious with terrorist financing and money laundering.
I am not sure that the compromise that has been reached with the legal profession is the perfect compromise. There may be other means to tighten that up, so the government, the security agencies and FINTRAC can get better information from the legal profession.
I was chatting with my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra. He is a lawyer and he has some ideas in this regard. I am sure when the bill gets to committee, the question of solicitor-client privilege and how best to deal with it and whether the law adequately deals with will certainly be one of the areas where my party will want to ask questions and possibly propose amendments.
The third and final concern is that the bill may not adequately address privacy concerns. When the initial law was written, I believe a lot of work was done to create the appropriate balance between on the one hand the need for FINTRAC to share information with law enforcement agencies and on the other hand privacy concerns and the right to protect individuals.
The Auditor General in her 2003 report also commented on this. She said:
 The government should assess the level of review and reporting to Parliament for security and intelligence agencies to ensure that agencies exercising intrusive powers are subject to levels of external review and disclosure proportionate to the level of intrusion. 
The bill allows FINTRAC to share more information than had been the case before with law enforcement agencies. If we are to preserve the balance, then maybe, in going further in the direction of giving more information to law enforcement agencies, the bill should offer a greater measure of protection due to privacy concerns and a greater level of review, as suggested by the Auditor General, than was in the earlier law.
I know, for example, CSIS and it is also true for CSE, because I dealt with it when I was defence minister, have important civilian review functions. This is designed to monitor the agencies to ensure that nothing unfair or inappropriate is done and to safeguard the rights of individuals and their right to privacy. It may be that some further steps should be taken. I do not know yet what those might be. This will be another issue for the committee.
Of course, the Maher Arar case has brought home to Canadians the importance of this area. I think it could be important as well in the area of money laundering and terrorist financing.
We support the bill in principle, but we have significant concerns in those three areas that I have mentioned. We will want to consider further in committee whether amendments would best be provided to the law. Again, those areas are as follows.
The first is whether the scope of the bill should be broadened to include not only cash, but in a meaningful and strong way also jewels, diamonds and other forms of wealth that can be used as a substitute for cash in money laundering and terrorist financing.
 Second, is the issue of solicitor-client privilege and whether the invocation of that privilege has not been so strong in the bill that we are not availing ourselves of information that the legal profession has and could help society track down terrorist financiers and money launderers.
Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, I have some concerns with the whole issue of the balance between, on the one hand, our need to get tough and track down terrorist finances and money launderers, and on the other hand, the need to protect the rights of the individual and privacy. I believe that balance has been undone by the bill and that the defence of privacy issues will need to be correspondingly strengthened.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my Liberal colleague is finally showing some interest in protecting personal information and privacy. When his government was in power and he was a minister, banks were allowed to exchange personal information via processing centres in the United States. And his government did nothing about it. 
My question for him is simple. Is he prepared to support the Bloc Québécois in its effort to protect the personal information and privacy of Quebeckers and Canadians?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of protecting individuals and privacy has always been a major concern for our party, both in power and in opposition. That is why I emphasized the importance of that point.
When we were in power, we emphasized its importance and acted accordingly. I would add that we will continue to do so. 
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and for all the hard work he did while he was minister of revenue.
I would ask him to articulate later in the House on some of the things he did while he was in cabinet because a lot of them were repeated by the parliamentary secretary. We notice that the government likes to trot out things that it claims it has done but they are really regurgitations of things that the previous government did. The Pacific Gateway strategy is just one of the more recent examples.
Getting to the root of the issues, one of the issues concerns trafficking. We know that more than 60% of the funds coming through organized crime gangs are funds driven by the illegal trafficking in drugs. We also know the current government does not have a plan to deal with drug policy other than to engage in what is called the war on drugs, which has proven to be an abysmal failure.
I have two questions for my colleague. First, could he again articulate the solution that he championed well in Parliament and on which he did a tremendous amount of work to gain control over the money laundering in our country? Second, could he give us some of his views on the importance of a rational drug policy that works to reduce harm, reduce use and to ultimately reduce the amount of money that is going through organized crime gangs?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was being unduly kind to the Conservative minority government today. It is true that we had done before all of this before. The bill was entrained long before the Conservatives arrived on the scene, so they just plucked the fruits of it, as it were.
Perhaps I was being kind to them today because they had such a terrible day yesterday in terms of the introduction of that environment bill, which was panned by all environmental groups and all opposition parties in the land. They also had the little incident regarding the canine species. Perhaps I was being overly kind in giving them a little more credit than perhaps I ought to have but they are the government and it is appropriate that it be presented clearly. As I said, we do support it in principle.
I agree with the hon. member in terms of drug trafficking and money laundering. We really need to be very serious. I do not know if I have more to add than what I said in my speech but we do need to engage the lawyers to provide the help where they can. Solicitor-client privilege is important but it does not trump all other considerations. That is one way we could be tougher. Getting tougher on diamonds and other non-cash sources of wealth is also crucial.
I believe the bill could be strengthened in a number of ways that would achieve the objectives which the hon. member, myself and, no doubt, all Canadians share.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member earlier espousing to all the good things the Liberal Party, I guess wanted to do because in 13 years it never got it done.
Here we are, eight months into the game, and we are absolutely getting it done with a very fine bill. The parliamentary secretary should be proud and we are cleaning up this money laundering thing.
 I was here through the entire debate and I failed to hear whether or not the new bill would take care of the money laundering issue that was associated with the Liberal Party during the sponsorship scandal. Could the hon. member tell us if it will or will not close that loophole?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is a little silly and does not really merit an answer.
I refer to the hon. member's preamble when he talks about 13 years. The impetus for this came following the tragic events of 2001. That was not 13 years ago. It was approximately five years ago. 
He is talking about action. The Liberal government acted immediately after the events of September 11 and produced the bill within months to set up FINTRAC which has the powers to take strong action and has taken action to deal with money laundering and terrorist financing.
He talks about 13 years but it has nothing to do with 13 years. Within months of the events of September 11, 2001, FINTRAC was up and running owing to the hard work, the commitment and the sense of urgency of the Liberal government following the events of September 11, 2001.
Now there is a little housekeeping being done and the Conservatives are claiming massive credit for minimal action. 
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question earlier of the parliamentary secretary with respect to what was in and what was out and the response I received was that precious metals were in, precious stones were in, jewellery was in, there was talk of real estate being in and things of that nature.
I went back and read the bill. What it appears is that precious metals are in but some of the others are not.
I just had a quick conversation with the parliamentary secretary, to be fair to her, and she said that she would do that by regulation. However, I think it speaks to the member's first and most significant, which is that there is a transmission of funds by means other than merely cash or electronic transmission.
Could the hon. member comment on the inclusion of other forms of valuable transmissions other than merely cash or electronic transmission and whether that should be, from his experience as minister of revenue, included by way of statute or by way of regulation?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for doing a little bit of due diligence and actually checking the act because it certainly was my impression that forms of wealth other than cash were not included in the bill, notwithstanding what the parliamentary secretary said earlier. I am glad the member, at least to a degree, confirmed that. 
I definitely agree that this is a critical element. With my experience in banking we all know that these criminals are clever. We need to be one step ahead of them and not one step behind them.
I think it is critical that these other forms of wealth be included in a meaningful and strong way. I would be inclined, in response to my colleague's question, to put them right into the legislation. 
However, in part, that is a technical matter and we should hear from the department and the technical experts on that matter. My initial inclination would be that we need to make this a very strong bill. We need to be two steps ahead, not two steps behind the criminal element. Subject to privacy concerns, which I also mentioned, we need to take a very strong, proactive and vigorous stance in this area.

Statements By Members
Randy Payne and Blake WilliamsonMr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in April, I had the sad occasion to pay my respects to Corporal Randy Payne who was killed in Afghanistan. His name has been inscribed on the cenotaph in Gananoque where he grew up. In early November, a tree will be dedicated in his honour on Remembrance Road in Mallorytown where he lived and his wife, Jodi, and his children live.
Later this afternoon, I will be in Kemptville attending a memorial service for Private Blake Williamson who was killed in Afghanistan just last week. He, too, will continue to be honoured in his hometown.
Both these men were dedicated, honourable, courageous and personable. They have both been recognized as examples to their peers as they were growing up.
When Afghans no longer live in fear and poverty, we will continue to remember the role played by Corporal Randy Payne and Private Blake Williamson and the fact that they made the ultimate sacrifice. We will continue to thank them.
Government ProgramsMr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the minority government has shown its contempt toward vulnerable Canadians. Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board insinuated that advocacy does not achieve results and that it does not actually help people.
The fact is that the government has cut funding for literacy services, has dismantled advocacy programs for women, has abandoned older workers and has dismissed the value of volunteerism. It is clear that the real mandate of the government is to silence those who would voice discontent toward it for preying on those most vulnerable.
It is time for the government to finally do what it promised during the election, to stand up for Canadians. It must reinstate funding for the programs it has cut. It must recognize the critical importance of advocacy in the democratic process. However, most important, it must lend an ear to the voices of those most disadvantaged in the country.
Laurent LeblondMs. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on August 31, 2006, Laurent Leblond received the 2006 Héron d'or, a tribute awarded by the Rimouski international jazz festival. This public recognition serves to underscore Mr. Leblond's important contribution to the cultural spirit of Rimouski, and to the development and longevity of the jazz festival.
Mr. Leblond has been a journalist for nearly 40 years and has always made it his duty to draw attention to the cultural events in our vast region. His love of culture, and especially music, are no less than infectious. 
I would first like to thank Mr. Leblond for his contribution to the enrichment of our cultural life in the Lower St. Lawrence. I would also like to shine the spotlight on his outstanding contribution to the longevity of the Rimouski international jazz festival, and finally, I would like to sincerely congratulate Mr. Leblond.
Housing Affordability WeekMs. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, next week is Housing Affordability Week in Victoria. Police are now seeing twice as many people on the streets of Victoria than they did two years ago.
I agree with Victoria's police chief when he says that we cannot police our way out of homelessness, poverty and inequality. Victoria is taking action with an affordable housing trust. The Cool Aid Society, Pacifica Housing and Cornerstone project are creating local housing solutions.
Through the proposed Victoria urban development agreement, citizens and community groups agreed that housing was the number one priority for municipal, provincial and federal cooperation.
It is time for the federal government to listen to what Victoria is saying loud and clear and do its part to grant the right to safe, decent housing to every citizen in the country.
The EnvironmentMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale is proud to be home to one of only thirteen other UNESCO biosphere reserves in Canada. 
The Bruce Trail Association and the Hamilton Conservation Authority are among many organizations that steward this sensitive Niagara Escarpment-Dundas Valley. The biosphere goal is ecological management that will assure environmental flourishing along with human prosperity.
I am excited that our government's new clean air act substantially contributes and complements the efforts of thousands of volunteer hours invested in my riding.
Air quality has worsened under the previous government and as a result there has been an increase in the incidences of disease and deaths attributed to air pollution.
The clean air act would set in motion the country's first comprehensive and integrated approach to tackle air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. 
With an attitude that will be strict but fair, we will collaborate with industry to set sensible targets and realistic timelines.
Unlike the previous government, our approach addresses both air pollutants and greenhouse gases and provides a comprehensive solution to protect the health of Canadians and our environment for generations to come.
Member for Central NovaHon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the distasteful comments made yesterday by the part time Minister for ACOA serve as a reference point for the Conservatives' agenda.
First, the MP for Central Nova won the leadership of the former progressive conservative party under false pretences, making an agreement with David Orchard that he had no intention of keeping.
Second, he facilitated the death of his party, a moderate and respected institution with a long and proud tradition. His decision to merge with the alliance party has borne fruit in recent days with the reform driven ideology to cut important programs and services such as adult literacy and efforts to address violence against women.
We heard the shameful remarks the minister made about a parliamentary colleague and a respected Canadian woman. These comments have once again undermined the reputation of our chamber.
The Speaker: I caution hon. members that Standing Order 31 statements cannot be used to attack another member. I think the hon. member for Fredericton may have been doing that. I am sorry I was distracted partway through.
The hon. member for Calgary East.
DiwaliMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to share greetings with my fellow members of this House on the occasion of Diwali, the festival of lights celebrated around the world, which falls on Saturday.
Diwali, the festival of lights, has today become a widely celebrated event in Canada. I am happy to see how Diwali has emerged as a truly Canadian festival with all Indo-Canadians and well-wishers partaking in its festivities.
As in years past, this year too I will be hosting the seventh annual Diwali celebration on Parliament Hill this coming Monday. This event, which has taken on the proportions of a national Diwali celebration, is jointly organized by the India-Canada Association of Ottawa, the Federation of Hindu Temples in Toronto, the Hindu Mandir of Montreal and the Ottawa Business Council, in association with my office.
I invite all my colleagues from the House and the Senate and community members to join me on this occasion in celebrating Diwali.
Agri-Traçabilité QuébecMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the team at Agri-Traçabilité Québec, which recently celebrated its fifth anniversary.
Created in September 2001, ATQ is an independent, non-profit organization that grew from a partnership between farmers and the Quebec government, whose purpose is to develop, implement and operate a permanent identification and tracing system for Quebec agricultural products. 
Since June 2002 in the dairy and beef cattle sectors, and since December 2004 in the sheep sector, the organization has been tracing animals from the farm to the abattoir.
Furthermore, ATQ is working on various tracing projects in the deer sector, the transport of live animals, and the poultry and egg sector. 
The Bloc Québécois commends the leadership of Martine Mercier, Agri-Traçabilité Québec's first president, and that of Linda Marchand, the managing director. The Bloc would also like to wish continued success to Richard Maheu, Agri-Traçabilité Québec's current president, for many years to come.
Davie ShipyardMr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Friday, October 13, 2006 will long be remembered by the people of Lévis. On that day, the end of an interminable saga was announced.
In January, when few people still thought it was possible, the Conservative team in Quebec City made a commitment to support the resumption of business at the Davie shipyard, the largest shipyard in Canada.
With serious investors, the work of the Government of Quebec and the City of Lévis and the perseverance of the managers and workers, that promise has become a reality. It is a new day for the shipyard and for Québec-Chaudière-Appalaches.
I want to extend special thanks to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who stopped the liquidation of the company and made this achievement possible.
Today, we celebrate that a great company in Lévis is back in operation. My Conservative colleagues and I extend our best wishes for success to the company's directors, subcontractors and employees. Together, we can say, “Mission accomplished”.
Status of WomenHon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative minority government is showing blatant disrespect to Canadian women.
It has cut the budget for Status of Women by almost 40%, effectively crippling organizations that are fighting for equality for women. It has removed the word “equality” from its mandate. There is no support with the Conservative minority government for the advocacy for women. The government's elimination of the court challenges program is just another example. 
Among other groups such as minority language groups and immigrant groups, women's groups need resources to ensure their arguments are heard when they feel their rights have been trampled on.
Last week I talked to young people at the university in London, Ontario who could not understand the rationale for these types of short-sighted decisions.
The Conservative minority government continues to prove that it really does not care about women. I stand with my colleagues in this House who have been maligned by the government.
The EnvironmentMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal environment critic said that the Liberals would support the clean air act, allowing it to go to committee. Five hours later the same critic said that the Liberals would oppose the bill here in the House. Once again, the Liberals are sucking and blowing at the same time when it comes to the environment.
The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, otherwise known as flip, and the member for Don Valley West, otherwise known as flop, are making the Liberal Party name synonymous with flip-flop. A five hour flip-flop, the same amount of time it takes to cook a Thanksgiving turkey. Well it takes four hours to have a nice turkey, but five hours if we put in the stuffing, and we all know that a turkey is just an empty shell without the stuffing, an empty shell very similar to the Liberal policy on the environment. 
Greenhouse gas levels skyrocketed while the Liberals were in power, along with the flagrant lack of air quality standards and a lack of sanctions against the worst polluters, yet another Liberal disgrace.
I ask the entire Liberal caucus, what does it have against Canadians' right to have clean air?
Aboriginal WomenMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month. 
This year we are paying special tribute to aboriginal women. Today I want to comment on the contribution of aboriginal women to our communities and this country, and talk about the journey forward.
In particular, I want to stand today and acknowledge those women in my community of Winnipeg North who work with aboriginal women, as aboriginal women, and for our community. I stand today to honour women who are the backbone of our community, who are agents of change and our hope for the future. 
Let me mention just a few of them: Betty Edel, who is with the Community Education Development Association; Bernice Getty, who is with the North End Women's Centre, the Up Shoppe, which is a gently used clothing boutique, the Women and Money program, and who has also spoken out on behalf of solutions to domestic violence; Sonia Prevost-Derbecker, with Ndinawe, an organization helping young people; and many others.
Member for Central NovaHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday members in the House witnessed a sad and shocking display from the member for Central Nova when he callously inferred that the member for Newmarket—Aurora was a dog. 
As a fellow Nova Scotian, as an MP and as a member of his gender, I cannot say how mortified and disappointed I am by this behaviour.
It is simply inconceivable that this member represents this government to the whole world.
The Speaker: I have indicated that attacks against other members during members' statements are out of order.
And so I think the hon. member is stepping over the line in taking this tack.
Thomas Bélanger and François ThériaultMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on September 7 in Gatineau, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec en Outaouais inaugurated a monument erected in memory of Thomas Bélanger and François Thériault. These two workers died on October 8, 1906 while trying to set up a union.
They were targeted by police hired by the McLaren company, at a time when unbridled capitalism was sweeping Quebec. These men died defending workers' right to unionize. Their memory deserved to be honoured.
Granted, some progress has been made since that sad event, but more effort is still needed to make labour relations fairer and more harmonious.
Amending the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of strikebreakers will make for better labour relations in Canada and more civilized negotiations during labour disputes.
DecorumMs. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday an appalling incident to which I was a witness occurred in the House. As a woman I was insulted. It was intolerable and patently offensive behaviour, unbecoming for any member in the House, unacceptable to Canadian men with a sense of decency and honesty who treat women with respect and equality that they deserve.
This sexism would be punishable on a schoolyard playground. It would be wrong in a Canadian home. There is no reason it should occur in the House of Commons.
Sadly the Conservative pattern of sexism and misogyny continues with multi-million dollar cuts to Status of Women Canada and the removal of women's equality from the mission of the agency.
When will the minister finally do the right thing and apologize?
Liberal Leadership CampaignMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after shaking down children for campaign donations and attempting to raise the dead for, we can only assume, a divine intervention in his Liberal leadership campaign , the member for  Eglinton—Lawrence is once again reminding Canadian taxpayers that the Liberal Party regards public money as its money.
While the federal accountability act is languishing in the Liberal dominated Senate, the staff of the publicly funded Career Foundation have demonstrated true accountability. By blowing the whistle on a scam which saw clients of the publicly funded organization work on the member's leadership campaign in the days running up to the so-called stupor weekend, they have demonstrated great courage.
Let me speak very, very slowly to the official opposition. Taxpayer money is not the property of the Liberal Party. 
Thank goodness Canada has a new accountable government that respects public funds.
Old habits may die hard for the Liberal Party, but the age of transparent and accountable government is well under way in Ottawa.
Festival of Colours in RigaudMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the ninth Festival of Colours in Rigaud was held in my riding last week. A variety of very interesting activities entertained the participants, who came in large numbers.
Be it as an opportunity to take in the beauty of nature in autumn, to sample unique regional delicacies, to watch local artists at work or to learn more about the traditional way of life of Aboriginal people, once again, the Festival of Colours in Rigaud has been a success through and through.
The festival also offered a forum of exchange for the artists, craftspeople and citizens of my region. All in all, the success of this great family experience goes to show how bustling Vaudreuil—Soulanges is.
I am looking forward to welcoming you in large numbers next year.

Oral Questions
DecorumHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very straightforward question to the government. Is it acceptable to this government for a senior minister to depict another member of this House as his dog?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the alleged citation in question was brought to your attention in the form of a point of order yesterday. We trust your judgment to deal with such points of order appropriately. We trust your judgment unequivocally. I believe all members would agree that we could all work to improve decorum in this place.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this terribly offensive insult is unmistakable. What is worse, the minister, Canada's chief diplomat, ran from public scrutiny until he could check whether he had been caught by the written Hansard and then he denied the insult, but members of Parliament witnessed it and it was caught on tape.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs is Canada's face to the world. When will the government require this minister to withdraw the insult, apologize for it, and apologize for trying to deny that it ever happened?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, once again, I understand that this matter was raised in the form of a point of order yesterday following question period. I am sure that your honour is seized of the matter.
We trust your judgment in reviewing these questions when they are raised as points of order or otherwise. I am sure all members will join with me, including the opposition House leader, in agreeing that all members could exercise greater decorum in this place.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, this incident reveals a demeaning attitude toward members of this House and women in particular. This is not trivial. Sadly, it seems all too typical, typical of bullies, intolerant and vindictive.
The instincts that give rise to this insult are fundamentally inconsistent with the values that make us a respectful and decent people. After depicting a woman as his dog, how can the Minister of Foreign Affairs pretend to promote women's rights in Afghanistan or anywhere else?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I think that is getting just a little bit absurd. The fact of the matter is that there are members opposite who have made unparliamentary comments that have been clearly identified on the record. 
Indeed, there is a member opposite who raised this point of order who I believe referred to the Minister of the Environment in this place as some sort of pretty potted plant.
There is another member who made similar remarks about the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. They have all faced remarks from members of the Liberal Party that were not acceptable.
I think we could all agree that decorum should be improved. We trust your judgment in this matter.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's comments do not at all address the underlying issue.
Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made some absolutely insulting remarks. He said that the member for Newmarket—Aurora is a dog.
What are the intentions of the Prime Minister? Will he force the minister to publicly apologize? Will he strip him of his title of Canada's representative abroad, or demand both? Women expect much more than just silence in this matter.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
I would like to point out that this matter was raised as a point of order yesterday and is being left up to your judgment, Mr. Speaker. You have our full confidence and I am certain that all members agree that members could exercise more decorum in this House.
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, not only did the  Minister of Foreign Affairs make these unacceptable comments but, to add insult to injury, he had the audacity to deny it. He refused to admit that he made the comments that we heard yesterday right here. Nevertheless the tapes show beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did make these comments.
Will the Prime Minister  order the Minister of Foreign Affairs first of all to tell the truth, and second, to acknowledge that he made these comments and to apologize publicly?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that this matter was raised as a point of order. We have full confidence of the judgment of the Speaker in this matter.
I would like to remind this member that there have been many incidents involving members of the opposition. Unacceptable comments have been made. A member of the opposition stated, in reference to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, and I quote, “She may be pretty when she blushes, but she was blushing from shame”.
The EnvironmentMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced yesterday confirms, without any doubt, that the government has decided to kill the Kyoto protocol once and for all. In so doing, it shows its true colours by favouring its friends, the oil companies, which will be allowed to continue polluting as they wish, while penalizing Quebec, which wants to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives, by refusing to give our province the $328 million of new money that it needs.
How can a government that claims to care about the environment justify such an attitude, considering that its plan is nothing more than the perfect gift to its friends, the oil companies? 
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. Yesterday, the government took historic measures by introducing regulations and a bill to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.
We did not take any measure to protect any industry whatsoever. These regulations will apply to all industries, because we are dealing with a global problem that requires a global solution.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about these historic measures. We are going to have to wait until 2050. This is unbelievable.
This bill shows once again the huge gap between this government's approach to the environment and that of the Quebec government. Minister Béchard said he was surprised and disappointed, and he feels that this plan is totally unacceptable.
How can the government explain that, on the one hand, it rewards polluters, namely major oil companies, by granting them significant tax breaks, while, on the other hand, it penalizes Quebec, which wants to go ahead with the Kyoto protocol and which needs $328 million to do so?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Québécois members continue to pretend that the oil industry is receiving subsidies, but I would like to see proof of such subsidies in our government's budget which, incidentally, was supported by the Bloc.
The fact is that we have not given any advantage to the oil industry. However, following the measures announced yesterday by the  Minister of the Environment, the oil industry will be affected, like all the other industries, by our environmental regulations.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the oil industry enjoys huge tax benefits here in Canada.
Quebec has come out firmly in favour of the Kyoto protocol and does not agree with postponing the 2006-2012 “window” to 2050. The minister, Mr. Béchard, confirmed this yesterday, saying that not only the Government of Quebec would not take no for an answer from Ottawa: all Quebeckers support the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.
How can the government be so out of touch with reality that the only hard target it has set has a deadline as far off as 2015, when—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have put in place a target of up to 65% absolute emissions reduction by 2050.
We will also be negotiating over the next four months with every province and territory and industry sector short term targets to be put in place by spring.
The difference is that we have given our word to the provinces and territories, including Quebec, and every industry sector that we will set those targets with them, not arbitrarily like the former government, without any economic analysis or any environmental analysis. We will do it together.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the situation is completely absurd. The Government of Quebec has taken action and made real progress toward achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets, and instead of rewarding it, Ottawa is turning its back.
How can the federal government allow the big oil companies to continue polluting with impunity and turn a deaf ear to Mr. Béchard, the minister who says that Ottawa's abandonment of the Kyoto protocol is costing Quebec its significant comparative economic benefits?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the work that we do with the Government of Quebec on this file. The Government of Quebec has introduced a very good environmental plan. It is not in law yet.
Yesterday we introduced a piece of legislation that will have repercussions in every industry sector, every province and every territory across this country, including Quebec.
We look forward to working with the Government of Quebec to ensure that there is no duplication in terms of the legislation that it hopes to bring in one day on the environment. I look forward to my continued work with Quebec.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's announcement, a hot air announcement is what it really amounts to, answers the question: Who was the government listening to in preparing this so-called plan? My question is for the  Minister of the Environment because, clearly, she was not listening to Canadians.
 Canadians wanted Kyoto respected and now it has been torn up and thrown on the floor. The Conservatives were obviously listening to the oil and gas companies because they have decided to continue their accelerated capital cost allowances to this industry as a special deal. Scientists, on the other hand, say we should limit temperature rise to two degrees.
Will the Conservatives' plan meet that goal or not?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that not even the Government of Canada can guarantee what the temperature is going to be tomorrow or a week from now.
However, what we can guarantee is that we are keeping an election promise to introduce a clean air act with teeth that will protect the health of Canadians, an act, by the way, which the NDP demanded during the last election. 
We are pleased to see the support for the environmental plan announced yesterday from the head of the Canadian Medical Association who said, “--by recognizing and targeting the role clean air has in ensuring good health, the government appears to be on the right track”. 
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians, we called for real legislation to improve air quality. What we have before us is not real legislation that can protect Canadians.
Scientific evidence indicates that an increase of 2oC can cause environmental catastrophes around the world. Can the government's plan prevent such a temperature increase? Yes or no?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the leader of the NDP has decided that it is up to the Government of Canada to control global temperatures. I think that shows a lack of scientific knowledge on his part.
This government takes its responsibilities and its commitments to improve the environment seriously. That is why, yesterday, we introduced Canada's first clean air bill.
DecorumMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the  Minister of Foreign Affairs insulted the office he holds and confirmed Canadians' reservations about his suitability as our face to the world. The minister's role as Canada's top diplomat requires him to exercise a little diplomacy.
The government pretends to champion Canada's role on the world stage, but it seems that decidedly undiplomatic behaviour is just fine, as long as it is coming from a senior minister.
How can Canadians trust the minister to bite his tongue when snide little smears cross his mind at the UN, at NATO, or at other vital international meetings?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I understand this matter was raised as a point of order yesterday. I believe that your honour has the trust of all members of Parliament to rule on such matters and certainly, as always, we have confidence in you to do so.
 I would invite the member opposite to acknowledge, as all members must, that we could all work to improve the decorum of this place.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the minister in question is Canada's face to the world. He is our representative in the global community and the spokesman for our foreign policy.
The world of high diplomacy, he should know, is one that demands pointed communication and respectful language. Yet, the minister has shown his inability to refrain from schoolyard antics when the opportunity comes his way.
How can Canadians possibly trust the government to avoid domestic embarrassments, such as this one, in the international community?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, as I intimated before, if we were to train a live camera on the member who asked that question through most question periods, we would see schoolyard antics. 
I think we can recognize that this is a problem. It is a challenge for all of us. We could all be part of the solution by working with you, Mr. Speaker, to improve the decorum of this place.
Status of WomenHon. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the evidence that this minority Conservative government is disrespectful of Canadian women is mounting.
First, the government eliminated equality from the mandate of the Status of Women, the only agency within government that protects and fights for women's rights. Then, yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board confirmed in this House that the government has no intention of supporting advocacy.
Why does the government insist on turning its back on women's rights and the groups who advocate on their behalf?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that it was a Conservative government that gave women the right to vote in 1917, a former Conservative government. The first female cabinet minister was in the Diefenbaker cabinet. The first female premier in British Columbia was from a Conservative government. I would just like to remind the member. 
I have to agree about the decorum in the House. Perhaps all members could support my former motion. I would like to see the decorum in the House change.
Belinda Stronach: Mr. Speaker, may I also remind the House that they also took the word “progressive” out of the name of the party. The evidence of--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Newmarket--Aurora has the floor to ask a question. We will have a little order, please.
[Interjection]
Belinda Stronach: Mr. Speaker, the evidence of what the Treasury Board President said yesterday is documented in the official record of this House for everyone to read. Canadian women and the groups who work to advance women's rights in this country are paying attention. The evidence is there: no equality and no advocacy.
Why does the government insist on being so disrespectful of women? Is it because it would prefer that we simply shut up and stick to our knitting?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the Government of Canada is committed to the full participation of women in Canadian society.
 We have undertaken initiatives to improve women's economic well-being, including: lowering taxes; putting more money in women's pockets; creating more child care spaces; and protecting women and children from sexual exploitation, violence and abuse. 
We have increased the amount Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax, which impacts on low income women and women living in poverty. We are cutting taxes for small businesses to help women entrepreneurs, who contribute in excess of $18 billion annually to the economy.
Older WorkersMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is making much of the pseudo-program announced recently. But the fact is that it misses the mark, because it does not include any support measures for older workers affected by mass layoffs. Take for example this former employee of Whirlpool in Montmagny who tried to seek assistance from the office of the Minister of Industry and was directed to the 1-800-O-Canada line.
How can the Minister of Industry claim to care about the plight of older workers, when all the assistance his office can manage to give them is some phone number?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague failed to mention that with the program we have put in place come very concrete measures, particularly for industry workers and for workers between the ages of 55 and 64.
These people will be able to take advantage of the government support provided through this program, one which, I repeat, is Canada-wide. This program is essential for our affected communities and regions.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, there is so little support for the alleged support program for older workers announced this week that, in an effort to sell his program, the Minister of Industry was forced to twist the words of Claudette Carbonneau, the president of the CSN, who then fired off an official letter of complaint to the minister.
Instead of trying to justify his program by twisting other people's words, would the minister not be better advised to put his energy into developing a real income support program for older workers?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed by the kind of remarks coming from the Bloc Québécois, especially the kind that says, “the alleged program announced this week”. The program has been announced; it is therefore not an alleged program. Facts have been stated.
What did the CPQ have to say on that? It said:
 Between being given a fish and learning to fish, the choice is clear. We have to help the affected workers retrain in different areas, and the sooner the better. 
That is what employers want, and that is what we are delivering.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's so-called worker assistance program leaves behind a large number of workers, including textile and garment industry workers in badly affected regions.
If the government really wants to protect the interests of textile and garment industry workers, like those in Huntingdon, why did it not negotiate safeguards, as the United States and the European Union did?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, once again, it seems the hon. members of the Bloc Québécois have forgotten that there is a problem in Quebec and in Canada. We have addressed it.
In my riding, Pontiac, the forest industry has fallen victim to difficulties brought on not only by the global economy, but also by the Liberals, who left very little behind. I would invite my colleague to visit my riding to explain why my constituents should not get this money.
International TradeMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will be losing more jobs. They do not even know what they are negotiating. Recently, the Minister of International Trade's chief negotiator appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to present a study of the effects the free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the Canadian and South Korean governments would have on the automobile industry. Mr. Burney emphasized that the effects of such an agreement on other industrial sectors had not been analyzed.
How can the Minister of International Trade negotiate an international agreement without studying—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that we of course are in negotiations with Korea on a free trade agreement, but we are nowhere near any finalization. When we are, he can trust us in that we will ensure that our auto industry in fact will continue to be consulted, as it has all along.
The EnvironmentHon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, government members never hesitate to quote headlines when they think it will help them. It is funny that we have not heard much of that today.
Let me give the government some of its reviews: “Critics blast Ottawa's 'shameful' green plan”, said the Globe and Mail; “Shameful delays in the clean air act”, said the Toronto Star; “Proposed legislation just 'smog and mirrors'...”, said the Vancouver Sun; and “Quebec surprised and disappointed by federal environmental plan”, said NTR.
Why has the government completely failed Canadians on the environment?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that this government does not govern on headlines. Let me talk about the content of our clean air bill.
 This will be the first time in Canadian history that the Government of Canada will actually regulate every industry sector across this country for air pollution and greenhouse gases.
 It will be the first time in Canadian history that we set national air quality health objectives.
 It will be the first time that we regulate the auto sector for fuel efficiency standards.
 It will be the first time that we will be accountable to Canadians through an annual report on air quality and accountable to regulate products that create emissions, such wood stoves that pollute our environment.
I would like to ask the hon. member, does--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.
Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an emerging pattern by the government, in which it makes things up when it does not feel that its legislation can stand the test of time.
 Yesterday the parliamentary secretary showed that he did not let facts get in the way of his slanderous campaign against Liberals. Despite the fact that he knew the Conservative plan has a base year that is 13 years out of date, he proceeded to slander all Liberals.
Will the parliamentary secretary once again retract his remarks and once again apologize to the House for misleading it?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the member is against clean air for Canadians, because what Canadians want to hear is what the executive director of the Clean Air Foundation said, which was, “I am pleased that the clean air act will permit for the first time the regulation of products and appliances that have significant impacts on indoor and outdoor air quality”. 
How about what the Canadian Medical Association said? It was that “the government appears to be on the right track” by “recognizing and targeting the role of clean air” to ensure good health.
How about the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association? It said that this “is a vital step” toward fulfilling our commitment to renewable content--
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister again misled Canadians, as she has done regularly with absurd statistics she makes up to discredit Canada's ability to meet Kyoto targets, but this time it was off to fantasyland when she said that the Conservatives' costly and ineffective transit credit has taken 56,000 cars off the road every day. Even those who track these kinds of statistics are scratching their heads today. 
Can the minister point to a single authority that backs up this outrageous claim?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I have here the statistics used by experts in my department, based on the Canadian Urban Transit Association estimates, based on taking 1.6 billion urban transit rides a year. It is very complicated. It is related to megatonnes, tonnes of GHGs per car ride.
The reason we asked the department to put it into terminology that Canadians can understand, which is taking cars off the road, is because it is a difficult thing to communicate when we are talking about megatonnes, but this is accurate. I would be happy to table it and share it with the hon. member.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, the Urban Transit Association has denied having anything to do with that particular claim, so it shows the minister continues to make things up.
First it was her false claim that the transit tax credit will reduce greenhouse gases despite contrary opinions she received from her own department. Then it was the bogus accusation that the previous government spent $100 million on carbon credits.
Will the minister stop making baseless claims in areas of her portfolio? Will she please get a briefing on global warming from her department? And will she finally get serious about global warming, like all Canadians, and bring forward--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Rona Ambrose: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share this detailed information with the hon. member, and it is based on the statistics that are used by the Canadian Urban Transit Association.
 Also, I would be happy to share with her details about the over $100 million spent on programs overseas by the former government. We have said repeatedly that is not the way we think money should be spent. We think it should be spent here in Canada, which is why we introduced a piece of Canadian legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. That is the most serious way that we can show Canadians we care about the environment.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister tabled the clean air act. The opposition, which did absolutely nothing for 13 years on the environment, is now saying that the government will not take any action on clean air for another three years.
Can the Minister of the Environment dismiss these allegations?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have waited long enough. They do not have to wait any more, because in the coming weeks and months we will reduce air pollution from snowmobiles and ATVs. We are introducing new regulations on heavy trucks, buses and forklifts. We are introducing new regulations to reduce pollution from consumer products, such as household cleaning items, cosmetics and paints, and new regulations to reduce pollution from the rail, shipping and aviation industry.
But the clean air act will take us further. For the first time, we will be able to tackle the important issue of indoor air quality. For the first time, we will have the power to set fuel efficiency standards in the auto--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
JusticeMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, journalist Juliet O'Neill is a national hero for reminding Canadians that freedom of the press and freedom of information are fundamental cornerstones of our western democracy.
From day one, the NDP has denounced the Liberal secrecy act as cutting a swath through those very fundamental rights and freedoms by which we define ourselves as a country.
My question is simple. Will the Conservative government honour the court ruling on the Juliet O'Neill case? Will it live up to that? Will it protect our rights and freedoms and will it commit that it will not appeal that--
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary. 
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously this decision is an important one. One of the options that the government has is further court proceedings. It would be inappropriate for us to comment at this time in light of that option.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has been all alone right from day one in saying that our fundamental rights and freedoms have been jeopardized by this Liberal secrecy act. 
The government today does not really even have to comment on the court case. Will it commit that it will amend the Liberal secrecy act so that it reflects Canadian values instead of violating them? Will it simply amend that act?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, currently, this section is under review and the Security of Information Act is being examined by a parliamentary review. The final reports of the Senate and House of Commons subcommittee are scheduled to be released December 22.
The government is committed to ensuring that its legislation protects the security of Canadians while at the same time provides public accountability and protects fundamental freedoms.
The EnvironmentMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities confirmed yesterday that Quebec would not receive any of the $328 million it had asked for to help finance its action plan on climate change. He then indicated that, instead, the Conservatives were going to hand over $240 million for public transit. Minister Claude Béchard challenged this, saying that this had already been announced in 2005 by the previous government and it was therefore not a new announcement, but one that had been around for several years.
Why is the minister trying to deceive Quebeckers this way? 
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. This provides the perfect opportunity to remind the House of the previous government's failure to act on climate change. That government went to Quebec City, loudly proclaiming that it was going to negotiate an agreement with the Quebec government. Of course, there was no agreement. Nothing was ever signed, nothing was done. We are going to do something.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 2006, the newspaper Le Soleil reported that, as a result of a meeting with her provincial counterpart, the Minister of the Environment said she was open to putting some money towards Quebec's action plan for climate change. Yesterday, however, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and political lieutenant in Quebec, said otherwise.
Why will the Minister of the Environment not keep her promise to Quebeckers?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I have always been very clear that we are very glad Quebec has put in place its own environment plan. It is a good plan. I hope it comes into law soon.
However, the government is working on its own plan. Obviously, it impacts all provinces and every industry sector across the country. There are a number of ways we can collaborate together to ensure that we make the best impact on the environment, and we will continue to do that with the province of Quebec.
Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that plan is the Quebec Kyoto plan.
Yesterday the Minister of the Environment had the audacity to claim that in order to make more progress in the fight against global warming, we needed to implement intensity targets. Intensity is not the issue.
 The government is trying to make it appear that it is taking new action. The minister fails to mention that thanks to the former Liberal government Canada's greenhouse gas intensity is already 13% below 1990 levels.
Will the Minister of the Environment admit that intensity is not the problem and that she is just trying to find a clever way to avoid real action until we are all dead?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, as I said repeatedly, the government is committed to putting in place short term targets, by spring, with every industry sector across the country and with every province and territory. However, the difference is we will do it together. We will not impose an arbitrarily picked target out of thin air like the Liberals did, leaving us in a mess so we cannot even make progress on the environment.
We will collaborate with the provinces and territories in a transparent way, work together with industry and put in place reachable, achievable, workable targets.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, numbers do not lie. During the former Liberal government's time in office, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada dropped in nine of the last eleven years and is now 13% below 1990 levels. Intensity is not the problem; real, actual greenhouse gas reductions are.
 Will the minister withdraw her notice of intention to regulate and replace it with a hard cap on actual greenhouse gas emissions that will take effect in 2010?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, out of the four plans that were shelved, the last two plans that were shelved by the Liberal government were intensity based short term targets.
As he also knows, it is not technologically feasible to make absolute reductions right now. We will put in place intensity targets in the short term to lead up to ensuring we have the technology in place to make absolute reductions as soon as possible.
TransportMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the proof is in that security measures at the port of Montreal and Montréal-Trudeau Airport are flawed. Rather than resolutely addressing the problem, what are the authorities doing? In one case they go after the journalist and in the other they fire the worker who blew the whistle. 
What is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities going to do to remind the port of Montreal and Montréal-Trudeau Airport authorities that they must address the security gaps rather than coming down on those who report them?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two part question. The first part concerns the recent report by a journalist. We investigated the matter and found that no immediate action is required. We also discovered that some of the report's allegations were unfounded.
Second, with regard to the port of Montreal, this is an internal matter.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, given that the government promised to protect whistle-blowers, should it not follow up on its commitment by abandoning the reprisals against the individual who courageously denounced the security failures at the Port of Montreal?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, if I have understood my hon. colleague's question, he is referring to the Montréal-Trudeau Airport. No action will be taken against the individuals involved.
FisheriesMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks tensions have been growing between the Chapel Island First Nations Band and the Richmond Country Inshore Fishermen's Association in my riding.
Disputed information on the extent of the fishery being conducted by the band and whether any illegal activity is taking place has caused concern in these communities. However, comments, such as those made by the Prime Minister recently in the Calgary Herald, have only served to further divide these two communities.
 Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans distance himself from the Prime Minister's inflammatory comments and work with both communities to ensure a lawful and orderly fishery is held in this region?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right to be concerned about the situation. There has been considerable tension between the lobster fishers from the Chapel Island First Nation and local fishermen, particularly with respect to measures relating to the band's food, social and ceremonial fishery. 
Agreement was reached last weekend with first nation leadership. The band council then voted to reject that agreement. Therefore, now talks are ongoing to reach a consensus.
I want to assure the member that we are monitoring the situation very closely.
The EnvironmentMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday our government tabled the clean air act, which demonstrates our commitment to cleaning up the air we breathe for the health of all Canadians. Part of that act includes the development of the new national air quality health index.
Could the Minister of Health please tell the House what public reaction he has received on this new bill?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the most obvious factors in determining health is the environment. Our government is the first government at the federal level to recognize this. In fact, the Canadian Medical Association said yesterday:
 --the government appears to be on the right track....that reason, the Clean Air Act could prove to be a significant first step in improving the health of Canadians. 
 Also, the founder of the environmental group Healthy Indoors Partnership has called this a landmark decision, a very positive development.
We are moving forward simply beyond lip service to the notion of addressing, finally, the determinants of health instead of the legacy of 13 years of inaction--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
DecorumJudy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister of Foreign Affairs demonstrated, yet again, a side of himself that is sexist and demeaning. I thought we were finally at a place in the House where women were no longer demeaned. Maybe we now know the answer to why the government is so determined to cut back on the status of women department.
Today we ask the government this. Will it tell the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he should stick to his knitting and apologize to Canadian women?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter is before you in the form of a point of order. I am sure the member who posed the question will share with me our confidence in your capacity to deal with these matters before the House and also a general will among members to improve decorum here. 
Since she has expressed concern about this alleged matter, I look forward to her next question regarding the member for Bourassa having referred to the Minister of the Environment as a pretty plant, and demand his apologies as they have not yet been forthcoming.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is allowed to bark and bite all he wants and no one from the government side is willing to tell him to put a muzzle on it.
For decades and decades in the House of Commons there has been a rough ride for female parliamentarians. We owe a lot to the founding mothers of this place: Agnes Macphail, Gladys Strum, Ellen Fairclough, Flora MacDonald and many others. 
The minister demeans the service of these women and, indeed, the whole House. Will no one in the Conservative government condemn these sexist actions?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, you are, of course, in your office charged with maintaining decorum in this place, which is why we trust your judgment when it comes to points of order such as the one that is now before you. I am sure the member opposite agrees that remarks made by members on all sides of the House should be considered in terms of improving decorum.
However, the Conservative tradition in our country is the one that brought the franchise to women. The first woman prime minister, the first woman cabinet minister, the first woman premier were all Conservatives, of which we are proud.
The EnvironmentHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last spring I asked a question about the government's commitment to restoring the Petitcodiac River and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment answered by talking about bus passes. Months later, there is still no action while this environmental tragedy continues.
Will the Minister of the Environment commit her government today to paying a fair share of the cost of removing the existing causeway and restoring this once mighty river, or will the fish now caught in the mud also have to wait until 2050 for any real change?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I will let the hon. member know the current status of the environmental assessment. 
The responsible departments, Fisheries and Oceans and my department and the Minister of Transport's department, are involved in this ongoing province-led environmental assessment at this time. It is examining some of the options related to the modification of the causeway. When I have more information, I would be happy to share it with the hon. member.
Aboriginal AffairsMrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Red Deer Advocate commented yesterday:
 [The member for Winnipeg South Centre's] party had nine years to provide to native people the same rights in family law enjoyed by all other Canadians, and chose not to right that wrong.... Native people have been waiting for such a law for too long. 
The former Liberal government's inaction is unacceptable. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs tell us what Canada's new government is doing to improve the lives of women and children to give them the same rights as other Canadians?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on September 29, Canada's new government launched the second phase of a national consultation process on the issue of the division of matrimonial real property on reserve. This is the first of a series of measures to protect the rights and to ensure the well-being of women, children and families living on reserves.
 Matrimonial real property has been a long-standing human rights issue and we are committed to resolving it. Unlike the former Liberal government, our new government is getting things done for aboriginal women, children and families.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the shift in the Canadian Wheat Board election process is becoming more confusing to the farmers, but that is not all. Legitimately nominated director candidates may no longer be eligible because those who nominated them are ineligible to vote. In other words, perfectly legitimate candidates could be unfairly disqualified.
Will the minister give his word today that any candidate nominated since the election process began will be eligible for election, regardless of the minister having changed the rules halfway through the election process, yes or no?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, hysteria and hyperbole seem to be part of the NDP's way of dealing with this issue. In the House the other day the leader of the NDP brought up this issue in a way that I am sure he knew was not accurate.
The minister has said that we will deliver balance to the producers who have delivered grain over the last two years. Any other person who has an interest in grain can file a statutory declaration and they then can vote in these elections and participate in them.
Points of OrderBelinda Stronach: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Standing Order 18, which reads as follows:
 No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded. 
Yesterday, during question period, the Minister of Foreign Affairs used a very inappropriate word to describe me. This is not the first time he and his party have revealed their true colours regarding respect for women in politics and how chilling this behaviour is for those women who contemplate entering politics.
For that, Mr. Speaker, I simply ask that the Minister of Foreign Affairs apologize to this House.
The Speaker: As I indicated yesterday when this matter was raised, the news of these statements is something that is new to me because I did not hear the comments or see any of the gestures that are alleged to have taken place.
My staff have carefully reviewed the audio tapes of question period and the written transcript of Hansard, which I myself have seen, and of course there is no reference to these words in either. So I am unable to confirm any of the suggestions that have been made. I know several members say that they heard these remarks.
However, in the circumstances, there is nothing further I can do at this time. Obviously, there may be further submissions on this point later.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To make matters worse, during question period, when I was asking a very serious question about the demeaning and sexist actions of one member of the Conservative benches, a member over here on the back bench of the Conservatives, I believe the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, was heard to say “stop whining”.
I find that offensive and contrary to the spirit of this chamber. It makes a bad situation worse. 
I hope now we will have apologies from the government on all sides, specifically with respect to that remark about whining, when we are raising a very serious matter that affects the women of this country and the members from all sides in this place.
Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would state, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister did on many occasions during question period today, that it is incumbent upon all of us, and I know that I have worked hard over the past number of months with my whip colleagues from all three of the opposition parties to restore some additional decorum to the House and to work with you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly that is the action that we are endeavouring to take. I am sure all the other parties would like to see greater decorum in the House. We are committed to that.
The Speaker: The opportunities for the Chair to intervene in respect of language used in the House, as hon. members know, are limited. We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House. Members are free to say what they want within fairly wide limits and the Chair enforces those broad limits.
However, the list of language that is unparliamentary is relatively short. Obviously words can be used in ways that are considerably impolite or improper in respect of other members and it may result in intervention by the Chair in certain circumstances.
However, I caution all hon. members to bear in mind that we do enjoy freedom of speech in this House and that members ought to conduct themselves in ways that are in accordance with the high expectations that Canadians have in members in electing them to serve in this place.
While I cannot hear everything that is said, especially when a lot of people are speaking at one time, I would urge hon. members to show proper caution in their use of language in the House and decent respect to each other because we are all elected to serve in this place, even though we may have differing political opinions.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, in your remarks a moment ago you said that you were not in a position to comment after having had your staff examine both the transcript and the audio tape. 
On this side of the House at least a dozen Liberal members heard the comment. May I respectfully suggest or submit to the Chair that in this case, given the particularly egregious breach of parliamentary conduct by a minister of the Crown, that the tape in question be sent out to a professional audio house, at which point the tape can then be examined more closely and we can then determine whether in fact the Minister of Foreign Affairs made the comments when he scurrilously referred to a member of Parliament on this side of the House as a dog.
The Speaker: I am getting tired of this one. The hon. member for Mississauga South.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, sometimes in matters where there have been questions of whether or not something occurred, those matters have been referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs where the committee can call persons who would know. Certainly persons sitting in the proximity of the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be able to answer the question on behalf of the House.
The Speaker: Members can move motions to refer matters to the committee should they choose to do so. It is not for the Chair to move motions in this House referring matters to committee. On a question of privilege, I may be able to do so but we have not had a question of privilege in this case. We have had points of order in respect of this case and it would not be for the Chair to suggest that motions are the way to resolve those matters. That, as I say, is not something in my jurisdiction.
PrivilegeThe Speaker: I would like to return to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean with respect to statements made by the hon. Minister of Industry in answers in reply to questions posed to him during question period that same day.
The hon. member alleges that the minister mislead the House by misrepresenting the position of Ms. Claudette Carbonneau of the CSN with respect to the older workers assistance program introduced by the government that same day.
The difficulty for the Chair in cases like this is that it would required the Speaker to be aware of all statements made at all times outside of this Chamber. It would leave the Chair in the impossible position of having to interpret and judge the content of these statements against the context of questions posed in the Chamber.
The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean made his version of the facts known to the House following the minister's response. While the member may very well find the situation frustrating, I must find that it is a dispute as to the facts as opposed to a breach of his privileges as a member and those of the House.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
Canada AccountHelena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of the Minister of International Trade, the Canada Account Annual Report 2004-05 prepared by Export Development Canada.
Committees of the HouseDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on the draft resolution of the UN first committee on arms trade.
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActSteven Blaney:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-359, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Lévis--Bellechasse.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for supporting this motion. There are three different geographic realities in my riding: Lévis, Bellechasse and Les Etchemins. The purpose of this bill is to have the name of the riding reflect reality.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Witness protection program act--Bill C-286Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, with the House's indulgence I have a couple of motions to present. There have been discussions among all four parties and I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: 
 That Bill C-286 be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security if passed at second reading, instead of the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights. 

The Speaker: Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the second motion. I move:
 That, four members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to attend the CASIS, Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies, 2006 International Conference, in Ottawa, from October 26 to 28, 2006, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee. 

The Speaker: Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsTina Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two separate petitions today. 
The first petition is signed by hundreds of residents from Cormorant, Manitoba, who request that public safety and national security service the community of Cormorant with an RCMP officer.
Tina Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents in Thompson, Manitoba, requesting the  Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to reinstate the early learning and child care initiatives and the provincial agreements.
Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to table in this House five petitions containing over 3,000 signatures from residents of Abbotsford and from residents across Canada. These signatures have been collected by justice advocate Gertie Pool.
The petitioners demand that our criminal laws be changed to ensure that repeat sexual offenders such as Peter Whitmore be kept away from our communities and children. 
The petitioners support my private member's bill, Bill C-277, which doubles the maximum sentence for luring children over the Internet.
The petitioners demand that Parliament introduce longer maximum sentences for sexual offences and impose mandatory minimum sentences for the most severe sexual crimes.
Denise Savoie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a petition from my constituents in Victoria, which is very timely in light of the government's introduction of the hot air act.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to honour our legal commitment to the Kyoto treaty; to further pledge to reduce Canada's greenhouse emissions by 30% below the 1990 level by 2020 and to 80% by 2050, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the State of California have done; to institute a revenue neutral carbon tax to increase prices of fossil fuels; and, finally, to enforce increasing fuel efficiency standards on all motor vehicles.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, members will be aware that Sri Lanka has degenerated into a state of civil war. Many of my constituents originate from Sri Lanka and are, of course, very concerned. It is a civil war that, frankly, no one can win.
The petitioners from my riding, well over 100 of them, are urging the Government of Canada to send a strong message to the government of Sri Lanka to cease military offences immediately, to allow international relief agencies to enter Tamil areas to provide humanitarian aid to the affected civilian population, to stop shelling and bombing civilian inhabitants, and to allow international monitors to investigate the massacre of Tamil aid workers.
This is a very serious petition and of deep concern to my constituents
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions with hundreds of signatures from people throughout my riding and other parts of the great province of Alberta calling on Parliament to reopen the issue of marriage and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others.
Guy Lauzon:  Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by 363 residents from the province of Quebec, asking Parliament to re-open the debate on marriage and to repeal or amend the Civil Marriage Act, in order to promote and defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House signed by hundreds in my riding concerned with the age of consent. This petition comes from the people of St. Catharines and it asks the government to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16.
Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from residents of my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap as well as from residents of Kelowna, Westbank, Longview and Peachland.
The petitioners call on the House to reopen the issue of marriage and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of my riding of Calgary—Nose Hill and area. The petitioners call upon Parliament to significantly increase the number of refugees that Canada accepts annually. On their part, the petitioners pledge to do their part to become neighbours, to overcome fears, to live in hope, and to make Canada a warm and welcoming place for refugees and other newcomers in our communities.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to address Bill C-25. I would like to reread the title of the bill, so that Quebeckers and Canadians clearly understand what this legislation is about.
 This bill is entitled An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. As people may have already figured out, I wish to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will support this legislation, because of the importance of the fight against terrorist financing.
We feel that this is a major challenge and that such a bill is necessary, particularly since the fight against organized crime has always been a priority for the Bloc Québécois. Hon. members may remember the work done by our colleague Richard Marceau, the former member of Parliament for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, who succeeded in having this House pass a private member's bill reversing the burden of proof in the case of the proceeds of crime.
As a result of interventions by the Bloc Québécois in this House, the federal government has decided to amend the Criminal Code so that criminals now must prove that the fruits of their labour or proceeds of crime are acquired otherwise, that is, legally. Previously, the onus was on the Crown and the government to prove that criminals' income or assets were proceeds of crime. Today, the onus is reversed, and the accused must prove that he or she worked to acquire certain assets.
Such situations exist in Quebec, and in my riding, I have seen amazing stories that can often turn out to be terrible stories of crime. Reporters and the media have given nicknames such as “Richie Rich” or “Peter Cash” to some criminals, whose personal possessions and equipment include planes, helicopters, luxury cars and waterfront properties. These people were so nicknamed by the community, because others knew that they were involved in illegal activities and had different sources of income from their own. As well, for safety reasons, neighbours do not dare question how some people have acquired certain assets.
Now, when they are charged, the burden of proof rests on them. This is an initiative of former member Richard Marceau, a lawyer who, as the Bloc Québécois critic, introduced a private member's bill and convinced Parliament to reverse the burden of proof in this case. The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of the interests of Quebeckers, but it has also always fought against organized crime.
Our colleague from Sainte-Hyacinthe—Bagot openly criticized marijuana producers. He even received anonymous calls threatening his life. During the 2000 election campaign, the leader of the Bloc Québécois had to have RCMP officers with him wherever he went because he had received threats after the Bloc Québécois dared to tackle organized crime.
The men and women of the Bloc Québécois will always rise proudly in this House to speak out for citizens who, all too often, are threatened and find themselves powerless in the face of organized crime, the ramifications of which are especially significant since marijuana growing has become an international business supported not only by organized crime, but also by biker gangs and street gangs. 
None of that will make the Bloc Québécois members back off from their role as champions or leading experts in the fight against organized crime. Understandably, Mr. Speaker, we will also be championing Bill C-25; in other words, we will be supporting it.
However, in supporting this kind of bill, which deals with terrorist financing, including, of course,money laundering and organized crime, one definitely must respect the privacy rights of citizens. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance between upholding the public interest and fighting organized crime, terrorism and money laundering, while at the same time respecting the rights of individuals, honest Quebeckers who might come under investigation.
That is why it is essential to ensure that any information that may be requested concerning citizens or individuals not be used for any purpose other than the one for which it was requested.
Again, in fighting and defending themselves against organized crime, Quebeckers can be proud to rely on the Bloc Québécois members to stand up for them and ensure that information concerning their private lives will never be used for any other purpose or made public.
We have seen it happen. Earlier, I heard a Liberal member who was a minister in the Liberal government say that the Liberals have always been staunch defenders of interests and privacy. It was under their watch, though, that banks carrying out information processing through subsidiaries outside—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague.
It seems there are not enough members in the House to proceed.
May we please have a quorum call?
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Would the clerk please count the members present?
  And the count having been taken:  
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am pleased to inform the House that we have quorum.
The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel may continue.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Hull—Aylmer wanted to ensure that I had a good audience for my speech. Then again, perhaps he asked for a quorum call because I was talking about the Liberal Party, which claimed to be the great defender of citizens' interests because of its fight to protect personal information even though it failed at the task when it was in power.
Under that party's mandate, more personal information than ever ended up in foreign hands, largely because Canadian banks were allowed to do business with affiliates in the United States. Laws protecting personal information are not the same in the United States as they are in Canada.
Honest citizens were sometimes harassed by foreign parties trying to sell them all kinds of products, especially banking services. Canadian banks allowed their American affiliates to make personal information available. This all happened on the Liberals' watch. I hope that the member for Hull—Aylmer wanted more people to hear my speech. I hope it was not because of the part where I said how poorly the Liberal government performed when it was in power.
The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 in order to protect personal information and privacy. Quebeckers and Canadians can count on members of the Bloc Québécois to defend and protect their interests in committee by having the Privacy Commissioner and the Access to Information Commissioner appear before the committee to explain what is good about the bill and what should be added in order to protect personal information. It is all very well to take action against money laundering, terrorist activities and organized crime, but we must also protect honest citizens who could end up under investigation for nothing. 
I will provide some background, since Bill C-25 did not come out of nowhere. Despite the Conservative government's good faith, it did not invent the wheel. One thing is for certain, the Conservatives did not invent Kyoto. Everyone agrees on that.
Bill C-25 is a successor to Bill C-22, which was introduced by the Liberal government and broadened the coverage of the act. Bill C-25 amends Bill C-22. In other words, Bill C-22 made it mandatory for federally regulated financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other intermediaries to report suspicious financial transactions. Suspicious financial transactions are cash deposits exceeding $7,500.
The former government's Bill C-22 applied to financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other financial intermediaries. The Conservative government is broadening this coverage and therefore increasing the responsibility of all agencies which, in addition to dealing in securities, also deal in other financial instruments, and of all persons and entities engaged in the business of remitting funds or transmitting funds by any means or through any person, entity or electronic funds transfer network, or of issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments.
We can offer our congratulations to the Conservative government for having extended monitoring activities to include not only banks and institutions that transfer money regularly, but also to other entities that are often not openly included. This applies to electronic funds transfers and businesses that sell or purchase money orders, travellers' cheques and other negotiable items. Thus, monitoring activities have been extended. We do not want these organizations used for money laundering. I think we can support this.
It also extends to government departments and agents that sell precious metals under regulation. Members of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that there is some degree of illegal trade in diamonds and gold, among others, which are not necessarily liquid assets, but are precious metals that can be used as currency in money laundering.
I believe that the Conservative government listened closely and covered these potential complaints from various stakeholders.
Previously, all the entities targeted by the legislation had to contact the centre, under section 83(1) of the Criminal Code, which sets out the obligation to inform the RCMP or CSIS of any property that belongs to a terrorist group. The new bill adds section 8 of the United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations. Those entities must therefore contact the RCMP and CSIS.
The new bill prohibits all entities from opening an account for an individual if that person's identity cannot be established. Not only is there no obligation, entities are in fact prohibited from opening a bank account. The bank must then contact the RCMP or CSIS directly to launch an investigation.
 Furthermore, the bill states that prior to doing business with a politically exposed foreign person—a judge, head of state, minister or other individual who has held a specific office—the institution must obtain the approval of senior management before entering into any transaction with the individual.
Thus, one cannot do business with exposed persons from another country or who would be likely to carry out types of transfers or financing for terrorist activities. They are required to obtain specific authorizations from senior management of banks.
 In addition, if a Canadian organization does business with a foreign bank, it is required to take measures to ensure that the foreign bank is not a shell bank, to obtain senior management approval, and to set out in writing all transactions.
In short, there is an obligation not only to know with whom one is doing business but also to scrutinize the banks with which one is doing business. Consequently, when a client wants to conduct transactions with foreign financial institutions, the bank is obliged to verify the credentials and to ensure that the sales, transactions or other operations are not fictitious. Its responsibility has been increased.
In the case of electronic funds transfers, the bank or other business must include the name, address, and the client's account number or other reference number, whether sending or receiving such transfers.
Electronic funds transfers are very popular now. The old bill was implemented in 2001 by the former government, which, once again, did not do its job. The new bill has been introduced for a reason. The Liberal government did nothing for five years. It did not manage to bring a bill into being. Obviously, things have changed since then, and significant numbers of financial transactions take place through electronic funds transfers. That is why the government introduced this new bill, which covers electronic funds transfers.
This new bill follows the United States' lead by requiring entities to establish a program to evaluate their ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime and financing terrorist activities.
That is what the Bloc Québécois has trouble accepting. If we want to do what the Americans do, we should not only do what they do right, but avoid doing what they do wrong. That is why the Bloc Québécois is being so careful. This is about the ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime. It would be nice to have that ability and to intervene, but we have to make sure we protect personal information.
Obviously, we will not be investigating. As we saw with the Maher Arar affair, we have to be careful with our investigations. Even with bank investigations, we have to be sure we have a situation that requires it. We cannot investigate just for the fun of it. We would risk arresting honest citizens who might find themselves under the microscope because we want to be just like the Americans, who figure that while they are at it, they might as well investigate a whole bunch of people. We must also avoid American-style mistakes, like casting too wide a net. They often proceed on the basis of race, religion, gender and so on. We are better off using a case-by-case approach and having really good reasons for investigating. Otherwise it is too easy to make mistakes.
The members of the Bloc Québécois will continue to defend the interests of Quebeckers and ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the American government. Any investigations with respect to detection must be justified, not conducted without good reason. Any evaluation of certain bank transactions cannot be done carelessly, because this could lead to honest citizens being investigated without cause.
Furthermore, we must ensure that no information on citizens who should not even have been investigated is shared with the United States, or any other country. In short, we must ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the Americans. Once again, only the Bloc Québécois can guarantee this to Quebeckers. 
Bill C-25 subjects Canadian banks' foreign subsidiaries to the same rules as the Canadian banks themselves. It was high time, because the Liberals made the mistake of allowing our Canadian banks with foreign subsidiaries to share information, even though foreign laws often do not have the same respect for privacy. This is true of American laws. 
To that end, Revenue Canada agents will now have the authority to give the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre any information they receive from another agent, under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act. The aim of this new authority is to better fight against the financing of terrorist groups through charitable organizations and through businesses that perform electronic funds transfers. Once again, I would like to point out that the registration of charities must be carefully monitored, although charities are normally made up of honest citizens.
That is why the Bloc Québécois will fight tooth and nail for privacy and personal information protection. One may be open to the idea of all categories of organizations being monitored for money laundering, but efforts have to be made to ensure that charities, which bring together law-abiding citizens, not be subject, as they are in the United States, to a systematic analysis of their data bases or have their members subjected to money laundering analyses. 
The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25, as long as honest citizens, honest Quebeckers are free from undue monitoring by government organizations eager to copy the Americans, who seem to think that, while they are at it, they might as well monitor or investigate just about everyone. We do not want that. That is not consistent with the philosophy of life and values that the citizens of Quebec have chosen for themselves. We want the privacy and personal information of honest citizens to be protected. Once again, they can count on the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel very much for his speech. He touched upon the issue of offshore subsidiaries. I would like to know whether he sees a link between money laundering and certain tax havens.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the objectives of this bill is precisely to prevent Canadian banks from moving into tax havens and dishonest Quebec or Canadian citizens from conducting transactions and thus engaging in money laundering. I think there is a great willingness to act.
Of course, this is a little complex. We know that the bank network is more complex. Some of our banks feel that they are too small and would really like to merge in order to conquer the world. Often, this is in the interest of shareholders who receive their dividends every three months. However, it must not be against the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians. 
I thank my colleague for his question, which is totally justified. He knows that the Bloc Québécois will be able to protect Quebeckers' interests with this type of bill. 
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I believe I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): You are under questions and comments. You have the floor to ask a question.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague made an important speech. I would like him to talk more about tax havens. Indeed, this bill deals with the issue of illegal activities, but there is something else to consider in general terms. Are his colleagues talking, in some committees, about places where there is tax avoidance? 
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is talking about tax avoidance. When we address money laundering we are also addressing tax avoidance. 
I agree with her, this bill is not going to resolve the problem of tax avoidance. Every committee in charge of reviewing products from the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance must make an additional united effort to fight tax avoidance, which causes money losses.
We often wonder why the Conservative government decided to cut programs for the least fortunate and for women, and any program that can help those in need. The government probably felt it needed the money. Maybe it could have kept the programs, and really gone after those who practice tax avoidance and cut the tax credits for its friends the oil companies. This would have been a nice way to show its human and humanitarian side, but instead the government showed its stern side to the least fortunate in society.
The Conservative government cut SCPI programs, programs to fight poverty, programs to help women and support programs for minority communities that want to challenge their government. The government is often in opposition with francophone minorities in Canada. 
The government could have helped the least fortunate in society by cutting tax credits or addressing tax avoidance, instead of cutting programs.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): We are still in the first round and in the first round you cannot split your time unless you have the unanimous consent of the House. 
Does the House give its consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to split my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre. I see that some members were in a bit of a quandary as to whom they would rather hear. Given that we are in neighbouring constituencies, we have the common characteristic of speaking vociferously and at length about issues of concern to us. 
I am pleased to speak to second reading of Bill C-25. Anyone watching this debate will wonder what the debate is about. We are using a lot of acronyms, short forms and technical language. Really this issue comes down to something that is very important for all of us: money laundering. Often we think of that in terms of criminal activity and organized crime.
I am glad that the Bloc raised another dimension to this whole issue. It is pretty hard to deal with questions of money laundering and money lost to governments and to our revenue source without dealing with tax evasion, without dealing with the presence in our society of tax havens, something that has been a problem throughout the last decade of Liberal rule and now does not seem to be on the agenda of the present Conservatives. That is a matter with which we must deal. 
We cannot continue to allow Canadians' hard-earned dollars to leave the country by way of tax loopholes and tax havens. I would hope that the government and the Minister of Finance would be prepared to come back to this chamber with some more definitive answers to questions we have been raising for a long time about why the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, closed some tax loopholes and tax havens but he did not close the Barbados. He did not choose to definitively deal with the issue. Instead, he provided apparently avenues for some of his numbered companies to continue transactions through such tax havens. He continued to find a way through his steamship company to change the flags conveniently in order to avoid paying taxes and to avoid fulfilling his obligations according to the standards of this country on the environment, workplace safety and proper compensation and income.
Bill C-25 is an attempt to deal with some very serious flaws in our ability as a country to track and deal with proceeds of crime, money laundering and terrorist financing. This issue has been before us for a long time. The Auditor General has been talking about it for a good period of time, specifically since November 2004 when she put forward a report on implementation of the national initiative to combat money laundering. At that time she said that we were far from being able to deal with this problem effectively and she recommended a number of changes. 
It is a big problem. Billions of dollars are involved. We are talking about illegal activities and money that could be used to promote illegal activities in this country and terrorist endeavours around the world. It is something we have to address and we need to do it expeditiously.
The Auditor General's report is a very valuable source for analyzing the bill and for determining whether or not Bill C-25 is truly in line with the Auditor General's recommendations. As a side note, it is important to note that the government says that it has respected the wishes of the Auditor General and followed the recommendations through the introduction of this legislation. We will be doing further study and research to ensure that is the case. During the committee process we will be questioning witnesses along those lines.
In addition to that significant study, we now have the benefit of a major study just completed by the Senate. It put a report out this month entitled “Stemming the Flow of Illicit Money: A Priority for Canada”. The study was coordinated by the Hon. Jerry Grafstein and the Hon. David Angus and it is comprehensive look at the issues of money laundering and terrorist financing. We need to know whether or not this bill actually respects and follows some of the recommendations from this report as well.
I want to note that in the conclusion of this report it states that Canada, as a global partner in making the world safer and more secure, must ensure that our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime is in line with international standards and obligations.
The study goes on to say:
 Crimes that underlie money laundering and terrorist activity financing--including fraud, embezzlement, drug trafficking and trade in arms – have harmful human, societal and economic effects, with domestic and international consequences. 
That really sets the context for what we are hoping to achieve with this legislation and why we need to get this bill to committee. We need to begin that thorough scrutiny and thorough analysis to see whether it is in line with the Auditor General's wishes and whether it reflects some of the recommendations from the Stemming the Flow report.
We are prepared to give support to the bill in principle. It may need some changes as we go through it but we certainly believe in its necessity and that it should be studied at committee.
However, a couple of concerns have been identified and I want to put them on the record. First, let me mention the questions raised by Democracy Watch in a release put out on October 12. This important organization, which has been an incredible watchdog for the integrity of our institutions from a democratic point of view, has called on the federal Minister of Finance to deal with a gap in the bill before us. It wants us to add senior Canadian politicians and government officials to the bank account watch list of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. It says that this change is recommended by the international standard setting task force, the financial action task force and, therefore, if we are bringing our legislation in line with this task force, then surely we must address this particular aspect.
Democracy Watch also says that it has been recommended by article 52 of the UN Convention Against Corruption. It seems that there might be a flaw in the bill that we need to look at very seriously and determine how to amend the bill to bring it in line with these international obligations.
Specifically, I should probably point out that article 52 of the UN Convention Against Corruption states the following:
 ...each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with its domestic law, to require financial institutions within its jurisdiction to...conduct enhanced scrutiny of accounts sought or maintained by or on behalf of individuals who are, or have been, entrusted with prominent public functions and their family members and close associates. 
Perhaps the government is leery about going this far, ensuring that actual politicians are included in this part of the legislation. 
I would conclude by saying that there are many issues to discuss. I thank the House for its attention to this matter.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the substance of hon. member's speech was actually well within the bounds of reason but the preamble to her speech seemed to be totally off side.
I do not want to leave a misapprehension. The hon. member, in her preamble, was complaining about transactions in offshore jurisdictions, transactions which are frequently treaty obligations and treaty supervised transactions.
I want the hon. member to say quite categorically that the transactions that she referred to in her preamble are neither terrorist suspicious transactions nor organized criminal transactions. I want her to clarify that for the purposes of the record because I do not think she wishes to slander all of the Canadian companies that conduct business around the world.
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have struck a raw nerve with the Liberals. 
If the member had listened closely to my speech, he would have heard that I made a clear distinction between money laundering as an illegal activity and terrorist financing, separate and apart from my concern about activities which I consider should be illegal but are not at the present, and that is the flow of money offshore to tax havens so companies do not have to pay taxes. 
If the member is so sensitive about this issue, perhaps he will support our efforts and the efforts of the Bloc over the past number of years to have this matter brought before the finance committee of this House and to this chamber. We are talking about the loss of billions of dollars to our public coffers that would go a long way toward meeting the needs of Canadian citizens. 
I would suggest that the member participate with us in getting to the bottom of this very serious issue that was not addressed by the Liberals when they were in government and which, in fact, may have been advanced and enhanced by their wishes to keep tax havens in place for the purposes of escaping taxes and moving money offshore.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague to flesh out perhaps a bit more what some of our concerns are about what that side of the House calls tax motivated ex-patriation and what we call sleazy, tax cheating loopholes. I wonder if she could comment on why his government tore up 11 tax treaties with different tax haven countries and left only one, the very country where the former prime minister and current member of Parliament for LaSalle—Émard happens to have his offshore tax haven companies.
[Interjection]
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre raises the precise point that we have been pursuing throughout this Parliament in different ways, and that is the continued existence of a tax loophole, of a tax haven, left in place by the former Liberal government to apparently provide an offshore place for people like the member for LaSalle—Émard to flow his money from his steamship companies and thereby avoid paying taxes. If that is not the case, then why are we having this study and why are we dealing with it in this place?
This reminds me of another important loophole. We had a case before this House that the Liberals refused to deal with, which was the project loophole case. It dealt with a prominent family in this country that was taking $2 billion out of this country and flowing it offshore and avoiding paying taxes on any of that money. Officials in the Department of Finance at the time, under the Liberal government, condoned that, defended that and supported that. If anything, we need to get to the bottom of that kind of mentality and deal with it once and for all.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for sharing her time with me so I too can enter into the debate on Bill C-25 dealing with money laundering and the funding of terrorists, a very pressing issue.
 I am glad Parliament is seized of the issue because it is something my constituents and people I know have raised with me, especially stemming from the recent information we have had. We were horrified to learn that research has recently identified that $256 million worth of illegal funds have flowed through Canada to terrorist groups. That is just what we have been able to identify and that we know about for a fact. No one is disputing those facts either, so we can attest to the veracity of those figures. Something has to be done urgently.
Although my colleague has identified some reservations about the bill, I support aspects of the bill, one detail of which I would like to dwell on somewhat, and that is the issue that the proceeds of crime could be seized from someone who has been convicted of a crime. If someone is part of an illegal organization, whether that is an illegal criminal organization or an illegal terrorist organization, the government should have the right to demand to know if the things that person owns are the proceeds of crime. If that person cannot demonstrate by a reverse onus that those items were purchased with other resources, then the government should be able to seize those proceeds of crime and use that money to further resource the criminal investigation of other criminals and terrorists. 
That is a good idea and it is a bold idea. The NDP government in my home province of Manitoba is seeking to introduce the very same concept. Somehow we need to make it abundantly clear that crime does not pay. Law enforcement officers have conceded to the fact that under the current regime crime does pay because the burden of proof on the government, the courts and on the police is very onerous at times. Even though we know that some person is up to no good and has no other visible means of support, it is tough to prove that the luxury home in which the person lives or the luxury cars in the driveway are in fact the proceeds of crime.
I say that we should give more tools to the law enforcement agencies and act on the side of the Canadian people in this case and shift that burden of proof onto the crooks. They should be telling us how they bought that luxury home when they have not had a job in 20 years. If a rich uncle died and left it in his will, then they should show us the will. If they cannot show us any other visible means of support, then we want to know how they are able to live in a mansion with all these luxury cars in the garage. We should seize those assets, send the message that crime does not pay, sell those assets and give them back to the law enforcement agencies so they can go out and bust more criminals. That is a good idea. 
I should point out that this would be law in Manitoba today were it not for the two solitary members of the Liberal Party in the Manitoba legislature who blocked and opposed the legislation. I do not know what problem the Liberals have with this. I do not think it is any great infringement on civil rights to ask the legitimate question of where a person received the money to pay for the luxury home. If that simple question cannot be answered, then we should seize it.
I have a few other points to raise and I will do so in a way that I hope does not inflame the passions of the Liberals opposite. This idea of offshore tax havens has a broader context than just wholesale tax avoidance. The same logic that allowed these offshore tax havens to flourish gives licence or gives opportunity for people to funnel ill-gotten gains with less ability to track offshore as well. 
In the context of the bill, as we go through Bill C-25 and its goals and objectives of limiting money laundering and trying to curb the financing of terrorist activity, we should be revisiting the tax treaties that have allowed Canadian businesses to avoid taxes on a rampant basis. Whatever tax regime we put in place, let us make it fair, let us make it balanced and let us make it favourable to business if we like, but at least let us make businesses pay their fair share once we have established what that rate of taxation shall be.
 It is such a contradiction to hear the Conservative government say that it will cut back on $1 billion worth of social spending, but then show this wilful blindness to $7 billion worth of lost tax revenue by allowing, what I call, tax fugitives to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in our country.
There is a polite term for it, and I know my colleague from the Liberal Party is an economist. The polite term is tax motivated expatriation. The street name for it is sleazy, tax cheating loophole. There is only one place we can still do it and it just happens to be where our former prime minister had his companies, his shell companies, his dummy companies, established so he could avoid paying his fair share of taxes in Canada. It is appalling. A Canadian prime minister should be proud to fly the Canadian flag on his ships and to pay his taxes in our country. I cannot understand the thought process that would lead him to believe otherwise. It is beyond comprehension.
 My colleague from the Liberal Party is helping me grope for the words to put some kind of definition to this appalling practice of tax avoidance.
The logic, though, about the proceeds of crime element is that any person convicted of an indictable offence at the direction of or in association with any criminal organization must demonstrate that every item of property owned by that person is not the proceeds of crime. That is just common sense to me. That is a burden with which no one in this room would have any difficulty.
 If I were driving a luxury car that cost $100,000 and I had no visible means of support for the last X number of years, it is not unreasonable to ask me where I got that car. If I cannot say that I either inherited the money, or I found the money, or I dug it up in the cabbage patch or whatever story, if I am not believed, if I do not meet the test, that should be seized from me. That sends a profound message throughout the community of those who would break the law for their own personal advantage or those who would break the law in order to fund terrorism, which is even worse, that crime does not pay, at least not in Canada. I do not view that as heavy-handed or an infringement of a person's civil rights whatsoever. 
Bill C-25 gives us an opportunity to finish a job that was started in previous parliaments. I should recognize and pay tribute to the work done by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, Richard Marceau, who is no longer an MP. He managed to get this concept into the House of Commons in the 38th Parliament through a private member's bill. I believe, even prior to that, a Canadian Alliance member, Mr. Paul Forseth, a former colleague of ours, introduced this notion into the 37th Parliament.
It has taken approximately 10 years for us to mature in our thinking about this concept or to be able to embrace this concept and not be threatened or feel afraid of this very worthwhile idea.
When Bill C-25 deals with the proceeds of crime, it also deals with issues pertaining to the Canada Border Services Agency, which permits the new centre of financial transactions and report analysis, FINTRAC, to exchange compliance related information with its foreign counterpart. That, too, is a necessary and commonplace measure if we are to curb the international activity that does threaten our national security. That as well is a concept that we should be able to embrace and not feel threatened by.
My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, cited some of the reservations NDP members have about Bill C-25. To summarize our view of it, we have to give law enforcement agencies the tools to do their jobs to make the point that crime does not pay in Canada to fund terrorism or self-enrichment.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today on Bill C-25. The bill will strengthen the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to ensure that Canada continues to be a global leader in combatting organized crime and terrorist financing. This is just another example of Canada taking the threat of terrorism seriously.
Once passed by Parliament, these changes will make Canada's overall regime consistent with international standards. The bill targets either the financial rewards from underlying crimes, such as drug dealing, prostitution and extortion, or by stopping the flow of funds to terrorist groups. 
Money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities are serious crimes that affect all Canadians. Criminals are constantly changing their tactics and finding new ways to avoid and evade the law. Therefore, we need to make laws that will keep up with criminals and, in fact, stay ahead of them.
The National Post has reported that Canada has long been a fundraising base for international terrorist groups, from the IRA and Hezbollah to the Iranian MEK. This can simply not continue.
The background on this is that the foundation of this tax regime was originally set out in the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and then adapted to the changing global reality of terrorism. It was renamed the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in 2001.
I would like to touch on the government's four key amendments that it has set out to accomplish the updating of what it needs to do. 
First, we are enhancing information sharing between the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, more commonly known as FINTRAC, law enforcement and other domestic and international agencies. In fact, this group reports regularly through the House's finance committee and did so just this past month.
Second, we are creating a registry for money service businesses. This really speaks to ensuring we have some accountability within that registry. 
Third, we are enabling legislation for enhanced client identification measures. We need to ensure we know who we are dealing with.
Fourth, we are creating an administrative and monetary penalty system to better enforce compliance with the act.
There is a need for why we need to do it. Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada reported in early October, as I mentioned, to the finance committee that terrorist groups funnelled an estimated $256 million through our country last year. This is up from $180 million the year before and $70 million the year before that. We are starting to identify and the bill enhances what needs to be done.
There are up to 34 terrorist financing networks operating within the country. Another $4.75 billion was laundered by crime groups, which is up from the $2 billion in 2005. Recently there was the case of four Canadians with links to the University of Waterloo accused of funnelling money to the Tamil Tigers. This shows that Canada has a responsibility to its international partners to continue to crack down on terrorist financing. Canada will not be a safe haven for those who support terror.
How did we come to this legislation? As a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force, we are committed to implementing its regulations, including new ones released in 2003, which require this update to be made. Canada has committed to implementing the 40 recommendations of the FATF on money laundering and 9 special recommendations on terrorist financing. The bill brings our standards in line with the Auditor General's recommendations of 2004 and the Treasury Board report of 2004.
Finally, it also fulfills demands of the interim report of the Senate committee on banking to implement tougher measures on money laundering and terrorist financing.
In Canada there is a need to balance increased vigilance and monitoring with the fundamental need to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens. This is an issue we take very seriously in Canada.
As we did with this legislation, we will continue to consult widely with Canadians. In the future, we need to ensure that a better system does not come at a price of a loss of privacy for all of our citizens.
As a prelude to the bill, the Department of Finance issued a consultation paper entitled, “Enhancing Canada's Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Regime” in June 2005. Over 50 submissions from stakeholders were received followed by further face to face consultations. 
As a result, the proposed bill contains amendments that seek to address industry concerns and minimize the compliance burden by tailoring wherever possible proposed new requirements to existing business practices.
The proposed legislation serves to meet Canada's international commitments to combat money laundering and terrorist financing while ensuring that our domestic regime remains robust and up to date.
Those who benefit from crime and steal hundreds of millions of dollars should not be allowed to drive armoured vehicles full of money and waltz over to their local banks. That is the last thing Canadians want in their country.
Criminals who are laundering money should do one thing. They should stew in jail about it. The government and its law and order package and its agenda will help prevent organized crime and terrorism from organizing in any of our communities.
Speaking to that, I come from a riding that is very close to three access points on the border. One of the commitments that we have made, both before the election and since we have taken government, is to ensure that security, whether it be RCMP or our security officers at the border, is funded, prepared and supported in order to ensure that Canadians, both in Niagara and across the country, are safe.
Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the objective of this measure is, among other things, to fight money laundering, the government will have to close all the restaurants and bars in Canada, and also a number of other businesses.
I now come to my question. In my riding, I met a person who told me about a Lebanese bank called Byblos. That bank has branches all over the world, except in Canada. Why? Simply because that bank is based in Lebanon. That is as simple as that. Why? Because, in Lebanon, there is a group called Hezbollah, and in Canada that group is deemed to be a terrorist group.
So, that bank, which is not run by Hezbollah, cannot open branches here because it could potentially have Hezbollah members among its clients.
So, we are preventing a perfectly legitimate institution, which has branches all over the world, from doing business here in Canada simply because it is based in Lebanon, where there is a group called Hezbollah that is considered to be a terrorist group by Canada.
What does the hon. member think of this whole situation? Is it not rather strange?
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the context in which the member makes her point. Part of the reason we are updating and presenting Bill C-25 is to ensure that we take into account the fact that times change, people change, organizations change.
What criminals want to do is ensure they stay one or, as far as criminals are concerned, two steps ahead of the law.
To get directly at the question, the structure of the bill and how those four pillars enhance it pay particular attention to the member's concerns. They enhance what we are already doing. Since 9/11 and the experience we have gone through, it is incumbent upon us, the House of Commons for the country of Canada, to ensure that we continue to update and ensure that we stay ahead of those who want to and who do criminal activities and laundering money in our country.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much doubt that the House, in a general proposition, is in favour of this bill. By and large, I think, speeches have been in support of the bill. Every once in a while the NDP members wander off the rail, but they are prone to do that anyway.
The genesis of this bill lies in the tragedies of 2001. Bill C-36 was passed. There was a significant court case in 2003, which opened up an avenue for lawyers. Then, in 2004, there were a number of inquiries, none of which have at this point resulted in any convictions.
First of all, I am interested in the hon. member's views with respect to the compromise position between the government and the legal profession, which is essentially a “know your client” proposition. I am interested in knowing whether he feels that relieving the lawyers of the obligation to report in the same fashion as other institutions would be required to report is adequate in the circumstances, and whether he thinks that their merely keeping a list of the relevant information will fill this very significant hole in this regime.
 I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the government in this particular instance. This is a very difficult issue of balancing solicitor-client privilege with the right and the need of government and law enforcement agencies to know what is going on in financial services.
At one point in another life I practised law and I know that on any given day we would be flushing literally millions of dollars through our trust accounts. I also know that there were times when I did not know my client and times that my colleagues did not know our client. They had come in for a particular real estate transaction or a corporate transactions or things of that nature. They appeared to be who they were. When asked, they presented verifying information with respect to who they were, but in truth, I am not a police officer and I was not a police officer, nor are my colleagues who are practising now. I had no way of verifying information that appeared to be legitimate on the face of it.
 I am interested in my hon. colleague's comments with respect to whether he thinks this apparent opening in the legislation has been adequately addressed.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments from my colleague on the finance committee, who also in early October had a chance to hear FINTRAC's presentation in terms of where things have gone to this point and how we are actually getting better.
It gets back to these points. Where do we start? Is that enough? Do we continue to ensure that whatever legislation we are doing we get back to the point of ensuring that legislation stays one or two steps ahead of those who are intent on finding ways of breaking the law and laundering money?
To his point specifically about his past career in the legal profession, I can understand his concerns around whether or not he or his colleagues knew their clients, or whether all lawyers are in the process of understanding their clients, knowing their clients, or in some circumstances perhaps not knowing their clients. One word comes to mind in that respect . All of us as parliamentarians understand that we can introduce legislation but we cannot introduce accountability and ethics. Part of being professionals is knowing and understanding when something is going to happen or has happened, and we have or may have played a role in illicit and illegal activity, that we need to identify it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I should point out to the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse that there is less than one minute left for the question and answer.
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to salute the work of our Minister of Finance, who is doing a great job for Canadian taxpayers. His excellent work helps them, while also allowing us to fight money laundering.
My question for the hon. member, who made an excellent speech, is: what does he see in terms of concrete impact in his riding, considering that there are contact points when it comes to money laundering?
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I certainly would like to do is talk a bit about the strength of our local economy, the strength of the St. Catharines community, and the strength of where we are going and what we need to do to become a more vibrant economic part of the Niagara region.
However, we are close to the border. I appreciate my colleague's question, because it points to exactly why we need to implement this legislation. It does not just work here in Ottawa. It works in the member's community, my community of St. Catharines and all of our communities. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Witness Protection Program Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from June 8, consideration of the motion that Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-286 amends the Witness Protection Program Act to extend the scope of the program to include persons whose life is in danger because of acts committed by their spouse.
I think we can agree that my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse is, in a way, aiming to protect women who could suffer spousal abuse. I think that we all support that aim and can only commend this initiative and commend the member for his concern about violence against women.
As the status of women critic, I can assure hon. members of one thing: it will be a long time before we live in a world and a society where women and children are not victims of violence. However, as a criminologist, I can only question the means used to protect these people, in this case the famous witness protection program.
This program is designed to protect informants, which does not send a very good message. An attempt is being made to use a program designed for informants to protect people, especially women threatened by their spouse. The indirect message this sends is that a woman who complains of abuse is an informant. And the method being used to protect such people is unfortunately not the best. 
I would like this government to think about the methods it is using to fight crime and especially to protect victims. I think that the intent of the bill is good and honourable.
There is another disturbing point in this bill. The first clause mentions that protection will apply only to certain persons. I think that any person who needs protection against violence must be protected. Besides, who will decide that a person has, and I quote, “reasonable grounds [to believe] that their life is in danger by reason of acts committed against them by their spouse”?
My question is the following: Who will make this evaluation? Is it the RCMP, as is the case in the current program? If so, what will be done for Quebec? In Quebec, front line workers are, to name just a few, the municipal police, the Sûreté du Québec in some regions where there is no municipal police force and, of course, women's shelters. 
What will be done? Will there be a situation where people who are already the victims of violence will have to deal with administrative red tape, that is the famous reverse pyramid? Indeed, although it may take months before women are protected, it takes only a few seconds to get a bullet in the head. 
Also, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that deals with child protection. Generally, when it comes to women, sometimes they have children with them, sometimes not. I greatly appreciate my Conservative Party colleague's generosity and desire to protect women. However, I will give him a few little ideas that are concrete and that would help protect women. 
First, why does he not ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women to give back the famous $5 million a year that she wants to cut from Status of Women Canada? We know that, in 2007, this $5 million a year will be taken from the funds of Status of Women Canada. 
Why does he not ask his minister to take appropriate action? A $5 million a year cut to Status of Women Canada's budget means $5 million less to fight violence against women and children. Those are concrete measures. 
If the member is so passionate about the issue of violence against women, I am willing to meet the Prime Minister with him, if he so wishes. I am even willing to meet his whole caucus to make his colleagues understand the importance of the gun registry. The importance of this registry is obvious. Any woman, any man, anyone in Quebec will tell you that it is very important. Indeed, the registry has led to a reduction in the number of homicides against women and children. In the case of women, the reduction was 31%. 
I do not think that we want to resemble the United States. We do not want the right to bear arms to be a constitutional right. People in Quebec and in Canada want the right to life to be a constitutional right. That is the right they want, not the right to bear arms and to line the pockets of the gun lobby. 
I urge the hon. member to review, along with his government, not only their perception of crime, but also the means used to fight it. We all want to eliminate this plague. Unfortunately, the means currently used by this government will not achieve that goal. 
I wish to make another point. Prevention is critical in the fight against any form of crime, whether we are dealing with violence against women, youth, street gangs, organized crime or terrorism. Prevention, measures to fight exclusion and poverty, and efforts to reconcile work and family are all effective ways to fight crime. Building jails and imposing stiffer penalties will not do the job. In fact, the longer people are behind bars, the more criminalized they become. Any criminologist can confirm that. Any self-respecting criminologist knows that penitentiaries are, quite simply, universities for criminals. 
I will conclude by saying that it is not going to be easy for the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse to convince his government that it should view crime from a new perspective. In any case, he should never forget that we were sent here, in this House, by the public, and that we should only be accountable to that public. 
Gord Brown: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I would like to applaud my hon. colleague for bringing forward this important matter. Sponsoring such a thoughtful bill, he has demonstrated his personal concern for one of our most troubling challenges as a society, the abuse of spouses by their partners. 
As a society we have come a long way. We have developed a much better understanding of this issue and as a consequence, we are taking real and meaningful steps to address it. The debate we are having today is more evidence of a concern that is widely shared. 
A caring society must ensure that its citizens are able to go about their daily affairs with a reasonable expectation of personal safety. As lawmakers, we cannot guarantee complete safety to every individual, particularly behind the four walls of their homes. However, we can take steps to increase the overall level of safety of Canadians, and that is exactly what Canada's new government is determined to achieve. 
As hon. members will recall, the Speech from the Throne designated attack on crime and the protection of communities as two of the government's five main priorities.
Budget 2006 pledged $161 million to hire 1,000 new RCMP personnel and federal prosecutors to focus on such law enforcement priorities as drugs, corruption and border security. Another $20 million was earmarked for various youth crime prevention initiatives with a focus on guns, gangs and drugs. Our government has also promised $26 million for a range of initiatives for victims of crimes, including the establishment of a victims ombudsman for matters within federal jurisdiction.
The government is also examining such issues as the length and terms of custodial sentences. In particular, as the Prime Minister has committed, the government introduced legislation to address sentences for dangerous offenders, particularly those convicted of sexual or violent offences. 
Such initiatives will do much to enhance the safety of our streets and to increase the confidence of Canadians. Can we do more? Yes we can. As the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse proposes, we can amend one of our existing laws to bring greater protection to a particular vulnerable group.
Under the bill before us, the Witness Protection Program Act would be amended, so as to extend to victims of spousal abuse the kind of protection afforded to men and women who endanger their lives by testifying as witnesses for the Crown. In order to weigh the merits of the proposals before us, permit me to expand a bit more on the witness protection program.
The RCMP has been engaged in witness protection activities since the 1980s, initially for informants contributing to the breakup of narcotics rings. This authority was formalized in 1996 with the passage of the Witness Protection Program Act, which allows the RCMP to protect witnesses to any inquiry, investigation or prosecution that places them at substantial risk. Typically, these witnesses are testifying in cases involving major organized crime, national security, terrorism, and so on.
The question then becomes, is it appropriate, feasible or indeed necessary to broaden the witness protection program to also protect victims of spousal abuse? In considering this question, we need to begin with some context.
According to the Government of Canada's 2004 general social survey, an estimated 7% of Canadians aged 15 and older had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. While nearly as many men as women reported that they were victims of domestic abuse, it is noteworthy that the scope of their experience is different.
Female victims, for instance, were three times more likely than men to fear for their lives and to lose time from their everyday activities. Women were also much more likely to report that they were the targets of more than 10 violent incidents and suffered bodily injury.
What do people in that situation really need? The answer to that question is as varied as the cases. In general, victims of domestic violence need a range of interventions, from information, counselling and social support, to emergency shelter and medical attention. Some need to get away altogether. 
For some, fleeing a life-threatening situation, only a whole new identity will save them. Such a solution is of course always an absolute last resort. It is a complex task and drastic desperate measure. It starts with a new name, but it is so much more than that. There is a new home, a new community and a new job. Gone is everything that the person once had such as friends, colleagues, a personal history and often even a family.
Fortunately, in Canada victims of violence do not have to walk that path alone. Some, as I mentioned earlier, are eligible for the protection by the RCMP under the witness protection program. The Government of Canada also works with its provincial and territorial partners, police, and a variety of social agencies to ensure that victims of family violence gain access to the services and supports that they need. These services may be delivered right in the victim's home community. Alternatively he or she may need help to relocate.
In assessing the intent of Bill C-286 several questions come to mind. For example, are those who fear for their lives at the hands of a dangerous partner sufficiently well-served by existing programs and also by social services that might exist at the provincial, territorial or local levels?
For one thing, the program is a tool for law enforcement officers operating in a context of crime investigation. As such, might it lack a focus on social intervention and support which are often important to domestic abuse cases? 
Such social interventions, moreover, fall under the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial agencies, and we must determine whether it is inappropriate for the Government of Canada to manage their activities under federal law. 
Finally, there is the issue of resources. We must assess whether the RCMP has the capacity to manage a substantial increase in the number of individuals afforded protection under the witness protection program. If the focus of the program were to change, would officers working on domestic abuse cases need to receive further training which would add to the cost?
There are few obligations of government more grave than the duty to protect and defend society's most vulnerable. Victims of domestic abuse need support and practical aid, including, in the most serious cases, assistance in leaving their abusers.
Addressing those needs is not easy. Programs must be developed and delivered in a way that will genuinely help victims, not inadvertently expose them to new dangers. In that context, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the initiative demonstrated by the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse.
The remedy he proposes in Bill C-286 is thoughtful. It underscores his profound concern for a truly worthwhile cause and it merits the respect of further debate and deliberation. This deliberation must also weigh the utility of the witness protection program as a tool to address domestic abuse, the jurisdictional implications of its use, and the resources available to law enforcement bodies that might wish to use it.
I do, however, thank my hon. colleague for bringing this matter to the floor of the House of Commons in the hope that it will receive due consideration in the very near future.
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-286 would amend the Witness Protection Act to include spouses whose lives are in danger because of the action of their spouse, which is defined to include former spouse, common law partner or former common law partner. A common law partner is a person who has cohabited in a conjugal relationship with another person for a period of not less than one year. 
Violence against women remains a serious social problem, despite advances in public awareness, support services and judicial and policy responses such as peace bonds, firearm prohibition orders, incarceration, no contact communication orders, restraining orders. To an irrational abuser, however, civil remedies, such as supervisory orders, custody orders for children or division of matrimonial property, may exacerbate a situation to the point where the only final recourse for the victim's spouse and her children is to escape the threat of personal harm by disappearing.
A commentary on Bill C-286 points out that this proposed legislation will introduce a subtle yet important shift in the rationale for the witness protection program. The existing program is to promote law enforcement by protecting witnesses who are in personal jeopardy because of their involvement in police activities. The proposed bill will add a related but separate purpose, the protection of persons who believe their lives to be in danger from their spouse or former spouse. This protection for individuals would be a goal of its own and not directly related to broader police activities.
I have no doubt that all members of the House agree that support for victims of domestic violence is needed and most commendable. The act will, however, be meaningless unless additional financial resources are committed to cover the expanded role of the federal government and the RCMP. 
Currently, spouses who are in such danger that they feel they must flee their surroundings and change their identities do now have some measure of protection under a little known ad hoc process called new identities, unless this has been a victim of the Conservative government's latest round of cuts to federal programs.
With the help of information from police, women's shelters and victims groups, the program assists desperate women in life-threatening situations gain a new identity and relocate by providing them with new social insurance numbers and ensuring continuity of federal social benefits such as employment insurance. This does prevent some devious predators from surreptitiously tracking down their estranged spouse. However, with no separate funding sources, the assistance provided is not comprehensive and falls far short of its aims and objectives, which leads us to the need for this act.
 Bill C-286 would also provide a new solid base for the new identities program.
 Subclause 7(2) of the bill sets out the factors which should be considered in the case of admitting a spouse to the program. They include: the nature of risk to the security of the spouse; the nature of the injuries caused to the spouse by the severe psychological damage inflicted on the spouse by the other spouse and the criminal record, if any, of the other spouse; the circumstances that cause the spouse to believe that his or her life is in danger; alternative methods of protecting the spouse without admitting the spouse to the program; and such other factors as the commissioner deems relevant.
Unless the criteria for entry are somewhat strict, the program could result in an unmanageable situation in which applicants flood the system. Spouses would have to believe, on reasonable grounds, that their life was in danger by reason of acts committed against them by their spouse and would have to be recommended for admission by a law enforcement agency, which could also include government departments.
Participation in a spousal witness protection program must be well thought out by a prospective candidate who must appreciate both the short term and long term complications. If elements of organized crime are a threat, one is most happy to disappear without a trace. Under the spousal program there is the family dynamic of parents, siblings, grandparents left behind, which could complicate matters. Children who, with the passage of time, may forget or play down the violence and abusive behaviour of the parent left behind, may work to reconnect with the parent, thereby blowing the cover of this protective veil after much time, effort and expense.
In most cases, under the current program, the RCMP erases all traces of a witness' former identity, moves the persons to a new province, pays for job re-training and provides money for re-establishment. A handful of abuse victims have been admitted to the existing program, but mainly for those who have testified against their partners.
When we consider the tremendous number of victims of domestic abuse and violence in our country, one can readily appreciate that there could be much take up under these programs and the funding necessary for the programs would be substantial. At the present time, the witness protection program costs range from $400,000 to $500,000 per witness, which is very significant.
 As this bill entails expenditures of money, I hope that the sponsor of the bill has sought an opinion on whether a royal recommendation is required, and if so, that the Conservative government will in fact support such a recommendation. The costs in and of themselves should not defeat an initiative that is worthy of further consideration.
Although it goes beyond the scope of the proposed legislation, serious consideration should be given by this government to working with our provincial partners to provide additional resources to deal with preventive measures and sound programs to get at the root causes of domestic abuse and violence, whether they be programs for counselling in alcohol and drug abuse, anger management, debt management, stress management, gender sensitivity--something we did not see much of on the other side of the House yesterday--marriage counselling, or other interventions that may prevent violent and abusive behaviour. This wish list is extensive but so necessary if we are truly to address the issue of spousal abuse and violence. 
We must assist the service and delivery providers throughout this country with much needed resources, either indirectly through the provinces in our social transfers, or directly to the social agencies for assistance programs that do not offend the federal-provincial jurisdictional responsibilities. The bottom line is that the groups and organizations on the front lines need help and financial assistance, help that will pay dividends in diminishing the demand and the need for extensive utilization of a spousal witness protection program.
One of these front line agencies in my riding of Welland is Women's Place of South Niagara, a crisis centre and provider of shelter for women and their children who are victims of domestic abuse and violence. Its doors are open to those who are forced to flee their residences, often in emergency situations, and sometimes with just the clothes on their backs, in order to protect themselves from serious injury or worse at the hands of a physically aggressive spouse or common law partner.
Occasionally an intervention of this nature is the catalyst to defuse an increasingly violent relationship, allowing the parties to reassess such a relationship and either to proceed to a more amicable or at least rational separation or to work to a possible reconciliation and a new respect for one another. Too often this is not enough. 
I have listened with astonishment and horror to the anecdotes of abused women from the shelter who are brave enough to tell their stories anonymously. I question how our society allows such situations to occur and why there are not the resources for prompt interventions. It is a sobering fact to learn that some women, for many different reasons, endure up to 30 incidents of abusive behaviour before they seek help to leave an abusive relationship for a much better life.
Some advocates for victims of domestic abuse and violence would like to see a totally new program of protection with decisions of acceptance into the program being managed or reviewed by professionals trained and skilled in making assessments of abused women and children, instead of leaving it to the RCMP to decide which victims need protection. Their concern is that the policing authorities could limit their choices to victims of abusers who have been criminally convicted of a serious related criminal offence. Police involvement would still be required but augmented by the input of trained professionals.
In this discussion I also wish to point out that legally acquired rifles and shotguns are the weapons of choice in cases of domestic homicide. It has been pointed out that guns are frequently part of the cycle of intimidation and violence that many victims face in their homes. For every woman who loses her life at the hand of a spouse with a firearm, there are thousands who are threatened or live in fear. In fact, one shelter worker with the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters estimated that at least 30% of her clients had been threatened with a gun. The opponents of licensing and registration tend to come from regions where guns are more common, such as rural communities and the west. Ironically, these regions are also where firearms figure more prominently in incidents of domestic violence.
The Firearms Act introduced measures for licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms. Coupled with appropriate training and implementation, these measures are essential to removing firearms from situations where women are at risk. Licensing of gun owners is essential to keep guns away from potentially abusive spouses or individuals with a history of violence.
I would hope that the sponsor of the bill would urge his government not to proceed with its commitment to gut the firearms program. Protection of women and children from domestic abuse includes much more than including them in a witness protection program.
The inclusion of spouses in the witness protection program is the last, the final safety net in cases where counselling and criminal law have been ineffective. Women who fall into this category must be given this opportunity to save their lives and those of their children. That is why I will support this bill moving to committee stage for a full consideration, including the testimony of knowledgeable witnesses.

Denise Savoie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am not in any way questioning the good intentions of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse who introduced this bill. However, I think his position is actually contrary to the policies of his party. Although he wishes to protect women and children in our society, by cutting numerous programs, the Conservative government will only put them more at risk. I would like to list some of the programs that were cut. 
I acknowledge—and all the statistics show—that women are still the victims of spousal violence. However, given the government's approach that all persons must fend for themselves, I think we are going in the opposite direction from the member's goal.
The government has just imposed drastic cuts on Status of Women Canada. This organization speaks out and advocates for women's equality. Now that it has been muzzled, it will be more difficult for it to advocate for women. We know that financial support for the administration, which allows this organization to function, has been cut, so, again, I would ask that he speak to the members of his caucus and the Prime Minister to reinstate that funding.
On the question of programs for prevention, they are almost completely sidelined in favour of simply making more criminals, creating more prisons and building the prison industry rather than helping those who are at risk through solid prevention programs. The funding, as we saw in the budget, has become so limited that its usefulness is questionable. 
On a third point, the Conservative Party has been unanimously against the arms registry. We have seen many crimes in the past year that have seriously endangered what we think of as our country's values. The saw the terrible tragedy at Dawson College, and recently women and children have been the victims of conjugal crimes.
We have to begin questioning why some of those weapons are even present in our society and why the government would not present a bill to simply ban the sale or the presence of these semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. There is absolutely no reason for them in our society. Friends of mine who are hunters tell me that they do not need them.
Yet these are some of the measures that would begin to help reduce crime in Canada, particularly, as we have seen in the past few years, violence against women and children. I believe those measures, with the appropriate funding, would be more effective in helping address a problem that we have all recognize. We all want our country to have a strong social cohesion, to be a place where women and children feel safe.
I would suggest that these are the measures of which our party would be more supportive.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse has five minutes to answer.
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. members who spoke to the bill: the hon. member for Ahuntsic, the hon. member for Welland, who asked a pertinent question concerning royal assent—and I think that the speech by the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville will comfort him—and the hon. member for Victoria, who is an ardent defender of women's rights.
At the outset, I want to say that this private member's bill has not been introduced by a single member, but with the support of all the other members of his caucus. I want to underscore the personal contribution and the selflessness shown by our party's whip, the member for Prince George—Peace River, without whom the bill could not make its way through the administrative maze. Members are aware that bills are adopted through a relatively complex process. I benefit from the hon. member's support and logistical help and I thank him for that. This is a cause that is important to him and has been for a long time.
On the government side, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development who provided me with a great deal of support to ensure that this bill got off the ground. I think all parliamentarians agree with the bill's principles. The purpose of the bill is to protect women from violent ex-spouses. I am glad this is something that is supported by parliamentarians, regardless of the party they belong to or where they are from in this country. Now we have to find a way to make this bill effective and that is why I am working in close cooperation with the ministers I just mentioned. 
According to Statistics Canada, there are still far too many women—653,000 women, but also 546,000 men—who encountered violence by their spouse or partner between 1999 and 2004. Some 9% of women even reported that they had been stalked by their spouse. This type of harassment involves repeated threatening or intimidating telephone calls. The spouse might follow or spy on the victim, physically or psychologically threaten the victim or, worst yet, try to kill the victim. Over 60% of stalking victims pursued by an ex-spouse were harassed for over one year.
We realize that this bill is not necessarily perfect and that it will not address all situations. However, if even a single woman in this country, and her children, is protected from her ex-spouse, we will have attained our objective. We cannot expect perfection before taking action. Too many women need our help.
Resources are available to women and I am proud of the assistance provided by Jonction pour Elle to the women in Lévis. The member for Welland spoke of one organization. Many agencies need tools to effectively help women. It is not right for a violent ex-spouse to get away with going to a police station to obtain all the information about the person we are trying to protect. 
The House must pass this bill without delay. Naturally, the parliamentary committee will have the opportunity to make amendments and improve it. Time is money and too many women need this bill. I could continue by providing some examples.
It is not true that the bill will be costly. During the last debate, large amounts such as $400,000 were bandied about. That is not necessarily the case. We are looking at a much lower figure, perhaps in the order of tens of thousands of dollars in some cases.
There are also tragic examples. Right in Montreal, violent ex-husbands have gone so far as to enter the houses where these women have sought refuge and to attempt to take their lives.
Our government has been working with the provinces since January 2006 to improve the status of women. I believe that this bill, with the support of members of the House, will be another step that the Government of Canada and parliamentarians can take to ensure that we live in a better society. This is, unfortunately, one of the elements we need at this time to help those women most in need.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Interjection]
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 2:30 p.m.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  It being 2:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)